Arch Install Package?

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:21:04

I was just pondering this topic. Couldn't Arch have one, giant package with all of the needed installation packages, such as a stage* tarball in Gentoo?

Example PKGBUILD:

pkgname=arch-install
pkgver=year.month
pkgrel=1
sources=('binutils.tar.xz' 'gcc.tar.xz')
md5sums=('foobar' 'barfoo')

build() {
      cd ${srcdir}
}

package() {
      cd ${srcdir}
      pacman -U binutils.tar.xz --root ${pkgdir}
      pacman -U gcc.tar.xz --root ${pkgdir}
}

This way, somebody could simply retrieve the file from an Arch server (where the ISOs are stored of course) and install it. This would help in situations where a user does not have any CD-ROMs, USB sticks, or the likes. A partition could be created and mounted in a location on the system. The package could then be extracted to the mount directory, therefore saving many CD-ROM bearing trees.

I see a few problems with this:
1) The user wouldn't really be able to decide what packages they wanted to install beforehand
2) Pacman would need to be installed on the host system

Here are my somewhat of a hack solutions:
1) Run a script after the package has been extracted to uninstall any unwanted packages. The user wouldn't even need to know that it is actually *removing* packages.
2) Simply extract the file as if it is a normal tarball, therefore removing the need for pacman to be installed. (would this work?)

What do you think of this? :)

Last edited by cesura (2010-09-26 19:21:59)

karol · 2010-09-26 19:25:56

itsbrad212 wrote:

The user wouldn't even need to know that it is actually *removing* packages.

I beg your pardon? I run Arch 'cause I want to know.

Is it meant to install Arch w/o any medium or ...?
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fas … nux_System

Last edited by karol (2010-09-26 19:28:34)

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:35:25

just save a list of packages. (pacman -Qqe > pkgs)

then, whenever you want to do an install, run the following-

pacman -S `cat pkgs`

karol · 2010-09-26 19:36:33

chris-kun wrote:

just save a list of packages. (pacman -Qqe > pkgs)
then, whenever you want to do an install, run the following-
pacman -S `cat pkgs`

But if you're on Ubuntu, you have no pacman to run it.

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:38:25

karol wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
The user wouldn't even need to know that it is actually *removing* packages.
I beg your pardon? I run Arch 'cause I want to know.

I meant that very loosely. However, there are many people out there who really don't care whatsoever and just want a working system (crazy, isn't it?).
I realize this goes against the Arch way. I suggested this because I have seen numorous threads titled "Complete noob, how do I install Arch without USB or CD-ROM?".

karol wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
Is it meant to install Arch w/o any medium or ...?
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fas … nux_System

Same as before. We have to face the facts eventually: the more Linux grows as a desktop operating system, more and more new users will be requesting help and blatantly ignoring the wiki articles. If this became a "standardized" method of installation, we could potentially make things a little easier on new users.

Looking at that wiki article now, I realize that I would be clueless as to what was going on with all of those commands if Arch was my first experience with Linux/a command line interface.

Last edited by cesura (2010-09-26 19:39:15)

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:39:06

itsbrad212 wrote:

Same as before. We have to face the facts eventually: the more Linux grows as a desktop operating system, more and more new users will be requesting help and blatantly ignoring the wiki articles. If this became a "standardized" method of installation, we could potentially make things a little easier on new users.
Looking at that wiki article now, I realize that I would be clueless as to what was going on with all of those commands if Arch was my first experience with Linux/a command line interface.

arch isn't targeted at those types of users..

Last edited by chris-kun (2010-09-26 19:40:51)

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:41:07

chris-kun wrote:

so.. you just want all the system files tarred up?
tar cJf arch-install.tar.xz /
?

Well, technically, yes. That is, if you are implying that it would be packaging all of the files of a clean Arch install.

I just thought the makepkg/pacman route would be a tad bit easier.

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:43:07

chris-kun wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
Same as before. We have to face the facts eventually: the more Linux grows as a desktop operating system, more and more new users will be requesting help and blatantly ignoring the wiki articles. If this became a "standardized" method of installation, we could potentially make things a little easier on new users.
Looking at that wiki article now, I realize that I would be clueless as to what was going on with all of those commands if Arch was my first experience with Linux/a command line interface.
arch isn't targeted at those types of users..

I realize this, but are we going to have to "kick" someone out everytime an extremely simple and very documented question is asked? The amount of clueless new users is continuing to rise, with very little action being taken (besides the excellent wiki people tend to ignore).

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:43:20

easier than that one-line command? =P

karol · 2010-09-26 19:44:05

itsbrad212 wrote:

I realize this, but are we going to have to "kick" someone out everytime an extremely simple and very documented question is asked? The amount of clueless new users is continuing to rise, with very little action being taken (besides the excellent wiki people tend to ignore).

They ignore wiki, we ignore them. [SOLVED]

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:44:46

itsbrad212 wrote:

..with very little action being taken (besides the excellent wiki people tend to ignore).

a lot of time and effort has gone into our wiki. If people can't be bothered to read it, their loss.

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:45:14

chris-kun wrote:

easier than that one-line command? =P

Well, if you don't want to manually build a new system in a clean chroot every time a few core packages are released, then yeah, it is. Let makepkg do all of the work.

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:47:37

chris-kun wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
..with very little action being taken (besides the excellent wiki people tend to ignore).
a lot of time and effort has gone into our wiki. If people can't be bothered to read it, their loss.

I understand what you are trying to say, but we can't force people to read the wiki. We can strongly advise them to, but we can't make them. However, what we can do is provide different methods of installation accommodate more users and their needs. I mean, we could just say "Eh, I don't care to help you. Do it yourself", but what would that really say about Arch to new users?

hokasch · 2010-09-26 19:48:01

I think what you have in mind is more like this:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … ting_Linux

Looks even more intimidating though

Extracting packages directly would miss all .install actions, and I don't believe it would be possible (or worth the effort) setting up the new system without chrooting (initram creation etc).

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:49:18

Why are we supposed to care about whether we can 'force' them to read the wiki or not. If they can't be bothered to install arch, so what. We've already done our part by putting everying up in the wiki in the first place. It's up to them whether they want to take advantage of it or not.

Last edited by chris-kun (2010-09-26 19:50:08)

karol · 2010-09-26 19:50:41

chris-kun wrote:

Why are we supposed to care about whether we can 'force' them to read the wiki or not. If they can't be bothered to install arch, so what.

I'd rather they don't install Arch, because they would start having many more problems ;P

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:50:42

hokasch wrote:

I think what you have in mind is more like this:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … ting_Linux
Looks even more intimidating though
Extracting packages directly would miss all .install actions, and I don't believe it would be possible (or worth the effort) setting up the new system without chrooting (initram creation etc).

Well, there would need to be some post configuration of course, just as in the regular Arch install.

karol · 2010-09-26 19:51:45

Installing Arch is one thing,running is another. A complete noob that doesn't want to learn is better of on Ubuntu (I mean no offense towards that distro).
My parents can't use any type of OS - even after almost a decade of WinXP they fail at most tasks. It's their problem, not mine.

If too many clueless people start flooding the forums, I'll help Pierre find some harder captchas ;P

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:53:20

chris-kun wrote:

Why are we supposed to care about whether we can 'force' them to read the wiki or not. If they can't be bothered to install arch, so what. We've already done our part by putting everying up in the wiki in the first place. It's up to them whether they want to take advantage of it or not.

Why does it seem like I am repeating myself? Whether or not they bother to read the wiki is not important. However, we will still continue to see many simple questions about installation asked on the forums.

There's really no way to attract attention to the wiki prior to a new user making a forum post, except by putting it in huge red text with arrows pointing to it saying "Find help here!".

karol · 2010-09-26 19:54:57

itsbrad212 wrote:

There's really no way to attract attention to the wiki prior to a new user making a forum post, except by putting it in huge red text with arrows pointing to it saying "Find help here!".

"GTFO" is even shorter. I'd like it in orange, though.

Edit: You can remaster Arch anyway you like. IIRC you already have some script that does the post-installation things, so go ahead.

Last edited by karol (2010-09-26 19:56:51)

chris-kun · 2010-09-26 19:56:53

look, if you want to make a way for installation to be easier or whatever, go ahead and code it yourself. nobody's gonna derail you for actually contributing something, but we will for nagging on others why we haven't, or why we need to.

hokasch · 2010-09-26 19:57:14

Well, there would need to be some post configuration of course, just as in the regular Arch install.

Sure, but I believe this will necessarily end up to be even more complicated and confusing than using one of the "fast arch install" methods linked above...

cesura · 2010-09-26 19:58:34

karol wrote:

itsbrad212 wrote:
There's really no way to attract attention to the wiki prior to a new user making a forum post, except by putting it in huge red text with arrows pointing to it saying "Find help here!".
"GTFO" is even shorter. I'd like it in orange, though.

Thanks for the laugh karol.

karol wrote:

IIRC you already have some script that does the post-installation things, so go ahead.

Ah yes, that ol' thing. Wonder if it was even put to use...

karol · 2010-09-26 19:58:43

hokasch wrote:

Well, there would need to be some post configuration of course, just as in the regular Arch install.
Sure, but I believe this will necessarily end up to be even more complicated and confusing than using one of the "fast arch install" methods linked above...

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=792020

cesura · 2010-09-26 20:01:16

chris-kun wrote:

look, if you want to make a way for installation to be easier or whatever, go ahead and code it yourself. nobody's gonna derail you for actually contributing something, but we will for nagging on others why we haven't, or why we need to.

It's not a matter of coding. Sure, I could make a "makearchfspkg" shell script, but it's a matter of peoples' opinions on it. As high as my ego might be, I am only capable of having one opinion.

That's why I asked. Not to complain or anything (as much as it may have sounded like it).

Arch Linux

#1 2010-09-26 19:21:04

Arch Install Package?

#2 2010-09-26 19:25:56

Re: Arch Install Package?

#3 2010-09-26 19:35:25

Re: Arch Install Package?

#4 2010-09-26 19:36:33

Re: Arch Install Package?

#5 2010-09-26 19:38:25

Re: Arch Install Package?

#6 2010-09-26 19:39:06

Re: Arch Install Package?

#7 2010-09-26 19:41:07

Re: Arch Install Package?

#8 2010-09-26 19:43:07

Re: Arch Install Package?

#9 2010-09-26 19:43:20

Re: Arch Install Package?

#10 2010-09-26 19:44:05

Re: Arch Install Package?

#11 2010-09-26 19:44:46

Re: Arch Install Package?

#12 2010-09-26 19:45:14

Re: Arch Install Package?

#13 2010-09-26 19:47:37

Re: Arch Install Package?

#14 2010-09-26 19:48:01

Re: Arch Install Package?

#15 2010-09-26 19:49:18

Re: Arch Install Package?

#16 2010-09-26 19:50:41

Re: Arch Install Package?

#17 2010-09-26 19:50:42

Re: Arch Install Package?

#18 2010-09-26 19:51:45

Re: Arch Install Package?

#19 2010-09-26 19:53:20

Re: Arch Install Package?

#20 2010-09-26 19:54:57

Re: Arch Install Package?

#21 2010-09-26 19:56:53

Re: Arch Install Package?

#22 2010-09-26 19:57:14

Re: Arch Install Package?

#23 2010-09-26 19:58:34

Re: Arch Install Package?

#24 2010-09-26 19:58:43

Re: Arch Install Package?

#25 2010-09-26 20:01:16

Re: Arch Install Package?

Board footer