Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta

Just wanted to see what everyone was using to do a clean Arch install- v0.6 or the beta of 0.7.

I've been wondering for the last few days wether Arch 0.7 beta works with udev and if it would detect my SATA partitions as /dev/sda1,/dev/sda2... etc.
What bothered me some time ago when I managed to break the boot process, was that booting from 0.6 would revert to the old scheme (compared to udev's) /dev/discs/disc0/part1... Lilo run under 0.6 does not see (because of missing udev) the "new" /etc/lilo.conf partition refferences. That's why I have to revert my lilo.conf, boot from the hdd and revert back to the new scheme.
I'd like to know if anyone knows anything about 0.7 dev naming scheme. It wouldn't hurt getting a fresh ArchLinux ISO if it would make my recovery work easier...

Similar Messages

Why not? kdemod + arch kde, same for arch live +chakra

Sorry for bug you people, but now that the waters are calm, i wanna ask a simple cuestion, why 2 proyects for the same task, arch kde and kdemod, same for arch live and chakra.
as user of both i think if all join the efforts, arch could be even better and erase the problems spesific for kde or kdemod, i now... linux is choice, and diferent aproachs(now are very close i think). but, ARCH Linux is one of the finnest distros and unified it, could make ready for be a popular wide users target distro.
linux is choice, but community is common efforts for a greater resoults.

drelyn86 wrote:Maybe the Chakra project should use Arch KDE rather than KDEmod. Then they could spend less time splitting packages, and more time fixing that god-awful Shaman application. I understand their liveCD is still in Alpha testing.
Agree! Altho arch should have used kdemod as its kde in the first place

[SOLVED ... apart from the Arch bit] NSLU2, backup & Arch

Hi All,
I run a little Linksys NSLU2 storage link for USB drives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSLU2 for files backup, music server, weather station etc. etc. This is a great, low power consumption device, which currently runs off Debian on a pendrive.
Two questions to those who know better than myself. (1) What is the simplest way of 'carbon copy' replicating the pendrive contents, including partitions, for a backup of the system. (2) Anyone fancy producing an Arch version of the system?
Cheers!
Ian Sutherland
Last edited by chsims1 (2009-09-09 06:40:31)

I'm also intrested in running arch on NSLU2 ... I currently use the version explained by gargi (gargi.org) but fail2ban doesn't work corrently ... and as I love archlinux pretty much so ... if anybody is able to explain how to create a firmware for this item I would be pretty happy to get this :-)
regards
kruemeltee

Migrating from Arch to Dual Boot (Arch 64 + Win8.1 64).

Hello my friends.
I used to have a dual boot system (MBR, if I'm not mistaken), with Arch Linux on hda (1TB) and Windows 7 on hdb (300GB). I did this installation more than 3 years ago.
The disk with windows died recently, and because I need it for work (virtual machine is not an option), I decided to make a "refresh" on my machine.
I bought two new disks, a 240GB SSD and a 3TB HDD.
What I would like to do is to install both Windows 8.1 and Arch Linux on the SSD disk (100GB for Windows, 140GB for Arch, my main system), and use the 3TB (for Arch) and the 1TB (for Windows) disks as storage.
While doing a research on how to do the installation, some questions arised.
I know that I must (or at least should, for make the processe easier) install Windows first. I will install in the EFI mode, as my machine alread has it.
1. Which boot loader I should use when installing Arch Linux?
From what I'd read, to keep things simple, I should opt for a bootloader like gummyboat, that will recognise the Windows without manual intervantion. Is this right?
2. Will I have problems with the Windows Update?
I read here https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=187194 that when Windows update, it mess with the EFI partition and will make the Arch stop booting (the boot will enter directly on Windows). Is this correct? Is this related only to "automatic" updates (and manual updates can be made without problem)? There is any way to avoid this?
3. After installing both systems, will Arch Linux recognize my 1TB disk?
My 1TB disk has my actual Arch linux installation, and data. I would like to copy this data to the 3TB disk and then, under Windows, format it to serve as my Windows storage disk.
I can do this BEFORE installing the system, or after. But the second option causes me some concerning regarding the rights and so on, so that I do not know if my "new" system" will be able to copy things from the old system.
Should I make the copy before installing Arch Linux?
I think this is it.
If you could helping me with these questions and pointing problems/flaws with my approach, I'll be immensely gratefull.
Chhers,
Eduardo.

Hello elken
While I could maintain the system under BIOS/MBR, and I don't had any problem with this in the last 2 years, I want to change my system to EFI/GPT.
I found that Windows under EFI must be under GPT (As pre-installed Windows 8.1), while under BIOS it must be under MBR. So, as my system is (will be) a DUAL one, and It is not a MAC system (that would allow to the EFI/GPT loader to chain a BIOS/MBR, I have to choose between EFI/GPT or BIOS/MBR.
Because my system can be setup under EFI/GPT, and because sooner or later BIOS/MBR will start to disappear, I want to change it now. This will mke it easier in the future to upgrade my system, I think.
Not to mention that GPT has some nice advantages over MBR. For example, GPT can handle my 3TB disk without problems, while MBR not. (At least, fdisk wasn't able to deal with it).
So, you could say that despite BIOS/MBR being fully funcional right now, it's a matter of personal taste (and learning) to me, this desire to completely change my system to EFI/GPT
For now, I decided to mantain the LINUX and WINDOWS separated (as they are now), i.e., on separate disks. This should solve the problem of windows messing with the boot loader when upgrading (point 2).
About the bootloader, I think I'll change to gummybot, to test it. I think I could still use grub 2 (I'm not entirely sure), but Gummybot seems simple and fair enough.
As an aside, I think I will try to migrate my system to the new HDF using rsync and making the necessary adjustments (like in fstab).
It seems not to difficult, and there are many documents out there on how to do this.
When I finish, I'll post here how I did and what worked and what not
Cheers,
Eduardo

Dual boot Arch and Windows XP (arch installed first) [solved]

I recently moved over to arch from Ubuntu, and would like to install Windows XP so that I can dual-boot between the two. However, my arch install created four partitions on my disk, and I can not create another one.
I would rather not have to reinstall arch, as setting it back up would take days on my current network connection. Is this possible? While I have installed XP over Ubuntu in the past (and am more than able to reform the MBR after the XP install) I have absolutely no experience with disk-partitioning, so concise instructions would be very much appreciated.
errata: my laptop has 4 gigs of RAM, so I don't think I need the SWAP partition. I am hesitant to delete it outright however.
this is a Gparted screenshot, running off of a Ubuntu live CD. The 60 gigs of unallocated space is where I was hoping to install windows.
Last edited by spotdart (2009-02-05 17:13:55)

What's on /dev/sda4? If you can blow away the last partition, turn the whole thing into an extended partition and then you can set up as many logical partitions as you want inside the extended partition. I suppose Arch is probably on sda4 and if that is the case you could move arch to sda3 first--there are lots of posts in the forum about how to move an installation of arch from one place to another.
Edit: Beat to the punch again. Yeah like he said you might want to delete the swap partition and then incorporate it into the 1st or third partitions so you can free up that last one.
Last edited by bgc1954 (2009-02-05 15:27:21)

[SOLVED] Lenovo T530 UEFI Arch/Ubuntu Dual boot - Arch fails to boot.

Hi All,
I have installed Arch to my Lenovo T530 to dual boot with Ubuntu using UEFI and Grub.
After installation, Arch is presented to me as an option when my laptop fires up. However, if I select it, the loader goes to a purple screen and then hangs.
I have attached here the bootloader scripts for my Arch installation (not working), my Ubuntu installation (working) and the output from sudo lsblk -o name,mountpoint,label,size,uuid.
Please let me know if there is more useful information I can provide. (I have output from Bootinfoscript available but it is quite extensive).
I am hoping to find out if there is an easily fixable error in the booting scripts used by Grub. If not, I have seen the section on dual booting with Arch in the wiki. My worry is that if I resort to it, UEFI looks to be temperamental at best and I risk breaking my currently working Ubuntu installation.
Thanks and regards,
Simon
Arch boot script (not working):
setparams 'Arch (on /dev/sda4)'
insmod part-gpt
insmod ext2
set root= 'hd0,gpt4'
if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd0,gpt4 -\
-hint-efi=hd0,gpt4 -hint-baremetal=ahci0,gpt4 729b5164-22c4-4c21-8212-\
66038d60943e
else
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 729b5164-22c4-4c21-821\
2-66038d60943e
fi
linux /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=ad4103fa-d940-47ca-8506-301d\
8071d467 rw quiet
initrd /boot/initramfs-linux.img
Ubuntu boot script (working)
setparams 'Ubuntu, with Linux 3.13.0-24-generic'
recordfail
load_video
gfxmode $linux_gfx_mode
insmod gzio
insmod part-gpt
insmod ext2
set root= 'hd0,gpt2'
if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd\
0,gpt2 --hint-efi=hd0,gpt2 -hint-baremetal=ahci0,gpt2 542bf27c-0fd5-42\
4a-b4d8-107f7cf97b75
else
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 542bf27c-0fd5-\
424a-b4d8-107f7cf97b75
fi
echo 'Loading Linux 3.13.0-24-generic ...'
linux /boot/vmlinuz-3.13.0-24-generic root=UUID=5\
42bf27c-0fd5-424a-b4d8-107f7cf97b75 ro quiet spash $vt_handoff
echo 'Loading initial ramdisk ...'
initrd /boot/initrd.img-3.13.0-24-generic
Output from sudo lsblk -o name,mountpoint,label,size,uuid
NAME MOUNTPOINT LABEL SIZE UUID
sda 119.2G
├─sda1 /boot/efi BOOTLOADER 524M 9360-2939
├─sda2 / Linux_Ubuntu 34.6G 542bf27c-0fd5-424a-b4d8-107f7cf97b75
├─sda3 [SWAP] Swap 9.8G 7768ae01-6e37-450b-bf0c-d873e3fd06a1
├─sda4 Linux_Arch 32.7G 729b5164-22c4-4c21-8212-66038d60943e
├─sda5 /media/Data Data 33.2G 5a971a77-685b-43d5-a8e6-c7b407a4c2ff
└─sda6 Misc_Data 8.5G b165990d-bd25-458f-b2d6-63fae28d0870
sdb 1T
└─sdb1 1024G a1ee2f60-007a-4292-982b-7d5f8375fc7e
sr0 1024M
Last edited by simon_sjw (2015-03-22 10:43:03)

linux /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=ad4103fa-d940-47ca-8506-301d8071d467 rw quiet
Change the UUID here. Where did that come from?
EDIT: curiously, if you DuckDuckGo search this exact UUID, it comes up a bunch of times and has caused people headaches before. If you fix that you should be okay. If anyone knows why this same exact UUID would incorrectly be created on multiple systems, I'd love to know. Seems like some kind of issue with dual/triple booting and OS-prober.
2nd EDIT: this UUID is in the default in grub.cfg. For some reason, it sometimes won't be replaced by grub-mkconfig... Maybe the user didn't run grub-mkconfig, but edited the file him or herself? simon_sjw?
Last edited by nullified (2015-03-22 03:12:36)

Danish Arch Linux site // Dansk Arch Linux side

Nu har den danske Arch Linux været oppe i lang tid så nu melder vi det officelt ud. Siden er:
http://www.archlinux.dk
Der er desuden forum:
http://forum.archlinux.dk
Og IRC kanel på irc.freenode.net #archlinux.dk
Der arbejde på en dansk Arch Linux guide her (er ikke færdig pt):
http://guide.archlinux.dk

The site is still under heavy construction but the forum and the wiki are allready usable
This file.html was a test file used to figure out some stuff with the domain name setup

Installing FVWM-Crystal on Arch (2.6.23-ARCH i686 Mobile)

Hello everyone
I am new to arch, but I have overall knowledge in linux, and I'd like to install the previously mentionend WM. The problem is that I dont know how to even add a repository, and what repository I should add. So, any overall advice on this matter is welcome Thanks in advance!

fvwm-crystal is in unstable. You need to edit your
/etc/pacman.conf
[unstable] <--------- UNMARK THIS
# Add your preferred servers here, they will be used first
Include = /etc/pacman.d/unstable <--------- UNMARK THIS
so you have access to unstable packages and then
pacman -Sy fvwm-crystal
at this point once you have installed then you can go back to pacman.conf and recheck unstable so you aren't running an unstable system.
fvwm-crystal is still at version 3.0.4 so you will have to manually upgrade to 3.0.5 if you want that one.
If memory serves me correctly that should work.
Last edited by cu3edweb (2007-10-28 14:42:03)

After update Arch stays at Welcome Arch - arch live iso the same

Hi, I would ask for your help. I did an update of Arch today morning, after this i can,t boot Arch. I added nomodeset to kernel but it just doesen,t work, won,t boot. I tried to run it from usb media, i downgraded kernel to 3.9, i downgraded intel drivers but still no luck. I have Acer Aspire AOD 270 with GMA3600 driver and Intel Atom procesor. Could somebod help me? It stays at Welcome Arch sign.
Last edited by firekage (2013-11-02 15:05:22)

jasonwryan wrote:
1. Stop bumping this thread: learn to use the edit button.
2. What video card is in your machine?
3. Add the relevant module to your mkinitcpio.conf to start early KMS
4. There is nothing wrong with Arch, except the number of people that want to use it without reading any of the documentation.
1. Intel GMA 3600 with Atom N2600 - Acer AOD 270.
3. My driver is iinstalled, it is something wrong not with it because it stops during boot after checking of root partition in text mode with nomodesert in kernel parameter. Also, the same thing happens on live usb with iso from november, but iso from june works, boots but than upgrades all of it and installation fails to boot,
4. Well, i could debate, i read a lot cause i like it, and in fact there are errors in documentation, for an example: related to installing nvidia driver, xorg.conf and 20-nvidia.conf.
BTW - i know that it is pointed towards me, but belive, or not - i read a lot, i only ask when i can't find a solution over the net, arch wiki or on other media. This problem is very strange - even iso from usb won't boot, on 2 computers (one desktop, one netbook). As a matter of fact, i've been reading since thursday about this problem.
Last edited by firekage (2013-11-02 20:37:18)

[Solved]Run reflector on Arch w/python from Arch w/o python

As the subject probably didn't make clear, I have two installations of Arch on one machine: one without python installed (henceforth Arch1), one with python (Arch2). I'd like to use the python environment on Arch2 when booted to Arch1, without chrooting. Is this possible (and preferably simple)?
Specifically, I'd like to be able to use reflector, which is installed on Arch2, from Arch1.
Thanks.
Last edited by alphaniner (2012-06-17 03:59:42)

Try to set the environment variables PYTHONHOME, PYTHONPATH, and PYTHONUSERBASE before running a python script. And create symlinks for the file in the shebang line.
Last edited by progandy (2012-06-17 02:23:57)

[SOLVED] Copy packages from current Arch install to new Arch install

Hello!
I'm new to Arch, so that's why I'm posting in the newbie corner. I've been looking everywhere for an answer to this: I want to do a fresh install of my system, but my internet connection is sort of messed up right now (unusually slow). I noticed that every package I have installed on my current Arch are saved in /var/cache/pacman/pkg. Could I make a backup of that directory onto another partition on my hard drive, reinstall Arch, and restore the backup to that same directory in the new install? Would pacman "think" it's already downloaded and skip the download step alltogether?
Thanks.
Last edited by magyckleo (2011-01-31 21:28:44)

karol wrote:
From the repo-add manpage: 'repo-add [-q] <path-to-db> <package1> [<package2>...]'
This should create the dbs you need.
Honestly, *I* think, that the manpage is enough and you don't need the wiki (in this case at least).
You know what, do a test, pick a couple packages, copy them somewhere and create a tiny local repo.
Awesome! I managed to make pacman read the package db I created using add-repo.
I added the repo to the pacman.conf. Had to do a little trial & error to figure out I had to put it like this:
[name of db file]
Server = file:///path/to/folder_of_db partition
I was trying to put the file.db.tar.gz complete rute. Of course, pacman let me know with an error that wasn't right.
I tried installing something simple, like wine. First, I did a sudo pacman -Scc to clear the cache. Then I did sudo pacman -S wine. It installed successfully! I'm gonna try with a fresh install this afternoon. I'll let you know of the result.
Thanks everyone!
Last edited by magyckleo (2010-09-27 15:46:05)

My thoughts (and yours too!) about Arch (I'm in love already!)

Hello all! I suppose I would be called a newbie to Arch, but certainly not to Linux. I've been running Gentoo for five months. If I were running, say, Ubuntu for five months, I would probably still be considered a newbie, but five months of Gentoo has made me pretty proficient at Linux.
I (if you haven't guessed yet) am a Gentoo user , and it seems like there are a lot of Gentoo users who go to Arch. That's how I heard about it, through the Gentoo forums. I am currently looking for backups in case Gentoo comes crashing to the ground. I was perfectly content in my little bubble of happy compiling until I learned about the unrest inside of the Gentoo community. I never realized that things were in such bad shape... like a downward spiral. The result cannot be good. I feel like I'm on a sinking ship and am praying for my life here. I've seen a lot of threads at the forums lately like "If Drobbins fork Gentoo, will you follow him?" and "Will you stay with Gentoo if the Foundation is handed over to a 3rd party?" I find these a little unsettling! I understand that the Foundation is a terrible state right now, and the founder's attempt to get it back has failed, so now I don't things are going to head up. So I've started to face facts, that I better have some backup plans so that I'm not starting over from square 1 when this all burns to the ground (hopefully if, not when, because I like Gentoo and really don't want to have to give it up). Now I admit that I don't like EVERYTHING about Gentoo, but I like almost everything, and Arch seems to be like Gentoo in many respects.
Some of my personal desires in a distro:
1.Bleeding edge with rolling updates (and thus no need to ever reinstall the distribution)
2. A large repository for the package manager
3. Not a newbie distro... a distro for those who like the command line and to do things themselves
4. Good community
5. Customizable
6. The ability to choose between a stable and unstable package on a per-package basis
7. Install from source
Arch seems to satisfy 1,3, 4, and 5 correct? And pretty well satisfies 2, though I can see its package manager is not as big as Gentoo (though bigger than like Slackware).
I guess for the most part it doesn't satisfy 6 and 7 though, right? I realize that AUR is source-based, but on the whole, Arch is binary, so I'm referring to the overall tendency of the distribution.
Is there the ability to choose between stable and unstable packages though, to be as bleeding-edge as possible? (I'm thinking no but thought I'd ask)
Many other distributions such as Ubuntu probably wouldn't meet my needs at all. They seem to have a great repository and community, but I just don't want a GUI-based distro. The truth is, I want to feel like my computer needs me. It's my baby. XDDDD Okay, that's pretty sad, especially because it's a Pentium II (I can't WAIT to get my new laptop!!!!!!!!!!!), but I appreciate my Gentoo box way more than our Windows box upstairs, a lot of that having to do with the work I had to put into it to get it working correctly, and all that I had to learn. It makes me appreciate it a lot more, and it makes me a lot better at solving problems. (If it ain't broken, why not break it so you can fix it? XD)I don't want a distro that does everything for me; I won't feel needed anymore. Plus, I'm addicted to the command line. I have a window manager, sure (Thunar with Xfce), but I mostly still use the command line to view my files. Sometimes I don't even start up X (I never start it up by default) and am just as efficient as when I have it open. I insist on knowing how to do everything manually... when I wanted to make keyboard shortcuts for X, I chose to use xbindkeys rather than use the GUI with Xfce, so I could do it manually and still have it working if I ever switched desktop managers. I manually edit pretty much ALL my config files and, like I said, I am just as efficient without the GUI as I am with it. I can't go five minutes in GUI without having a virtual terminal open. So I think, in these respects, Arch would meed my needs quite well, just as Gentoo does now. I have deiced to try out Arch now anyway, regardless of the state of Gentoo, because you know, i might just like Arch better. I know a lot of Gentoo users have said they've gone to Arch. I'm trying to get my friend Evan to let me use his 8 gb hdd to try it on, because my current 6 gig drive for Gentoo is like... 99 percent full (I swear, I'm not kidding, I have 100 mg left, I REALLY have to prune XD), so once I get it, I'm going to install Arch (after unhooking my /home hard drive because I only have two slots for hard drives, and they're both already filled! I will probably end up moving the /home directory onto that 8 gig drive anyway. I realize it's hard to share things between distros, but I will at least be able to have a place to put files for both distros in the same place and would probably end up symlinking some same location to my desktop for both distros
Okay, now I'm just ranting. Back to point! I'm definitely going to try out Arch, and so far I like what I see. I even recommended it to a friend who is also thinking of leaving Gentoo (for Ubuntu, so he can support his amd64 processor). I pointed out Arch64 and he's considering it. I don't think he'd like Ubuntu any more than I. He originally used Slack and only switched to Gentoo because Slack really doesn't have a good package manager. I think he'd like Arch as well.
I've also done research on other distributions someone like me might like (especially coming from Gentoo).
This is my current list:
Arch Linux
Frugalware (based on Arch, right?)
Zen Walk
Vector Linux
CRUX (I'm leaning away from this one, as of now)
Lunar
Source Mage
Sorcerer
FreeBSD (but I've decided not to go with FreeBSD, as much as I like installing from source, because their philosophy of stability over currentness (like not having flash 9 because it's not "stable") just doesn't fly with me.. Linux is better for me, I think)
LFS.. okay, not really, but if I ever have a weekend when I'm REALLY bored.........
I've used Slack before but I would prefer to have a package manager, so I'm steering away from that direction, as much as I liked Slack.
Have I missed any other distros people in this sort of mindset like us might like? ^_^
My primary focus right now is Arch, and it's definitely my first preference as far as switching goes.
I think my biggest problem with Arch is that I REALLY like to compile everything from source (or at least, have Portage do it for me :-p), so I"d miss that. Especially USE flags. However, Source Mge/Lunar/Sorcerer don't sound as good as Arch, and FreeBSD just... isn't my thing. Their package manger seems great, it's their overall philosophy I disagree with.
This post really isn't asking for help with anything, but isn't that fine? This is just the Arch Linux General Forums, right? I just wanna talk about Arch as compared to other distros. I've wiki-ed it some, but I just think it's a fun thing to discuss.
So what things do you guys like better about Arch, and what things do you like better about Gentoo, or maybe about some other good distros?
I can't wait to try out Arch; I'm so excited! No Xubuntu for me! ^___________^ (Gnome and ESPECIALLY KDE would lag far too much for this computer)
-Megan M-

Well, I technically have 14 gigs... I have the 6 gig and a 4 gig which has /usr/portage (the portage tree probably takes up so much space it would outweigh any space saved through USE flags XD) and /var/tmp, since that can get huge while compiling and I don't have space on the 6 gig for the fluctuations in space... I had to install the binary for OpenOffice just because the temporary space required to compile it was bigger than the space I had on my hard drive!!!!and I actually have so little space left I am permanently using a ext3 formatted flash drive as my ~/Desktop (it's in my fstab and everything XD!) This gives me 4 extra gigs for all my stuff.
But anyway, just you people answering this thread so nicely confirms my feelings about the Arch community. I can easily see a thread like this simply being ignored on the Gentoo forums, or just merged with other threads. >.<
Actually, to be honest, most pakcages I am running unstable on Gentoo had to do with compile errors and such, or some feature not working correctly in the older version. The only ones that I just wanted to run unstable are.. lemme check my /etc/portage/package.keywords... Skype and Pidgin. And possibly Mplayer too, I was thinking of. Everything else was either because of problems or of it being in the Sunrise overlay (everything in there is masked as unstable since it's not an official part of the Portage tree).
How easy is it to get an older version of a package? I ask because I want Flash 9.0.48.0-r1, NOT 9.0.115.0. The newer one made my Firefox commit suicide and just close with an error when I viewed certain pages (youtube, etc. was fine, but even going to www.adobe.com made it crash *irony*). Gentoo forum users told me that then newer one was unmasked because of a security flaw found in the older one, but for me, I'd rather take my chances with the hole than have firefox crash every five minutes!!!! Is there any way to specify not to update a package either, for when you do a world update (or whatever they are called in Arch)? This also has to do with Flash... I'll give the newer one a try... maybe it was just a Gentoo issue... but if not, I'm DEFINITELY downgrading!
I like how easy it seems for Arch users to add packages to AUR so they are available to others... this is harder to do on Gentoo, despite that everything is source-based. It's most like there is a wall between the users and the developers that cannot be broken easily. This seems like a good way to let users have a little fun in the developer's world without *being* one.
One last question while I'm here.. my other friend who I sugested Arch to... I just want to confirm that Arch would support his CPU. He said to me:
"Oh, and my CPU arch is amd64 / x86-64 / emt64-t
thechnically its em64t since its an intel CPU but i am running a k8 optimized system (because I used to have a opteron)"
^_^
PS: Your forums may be smaller than those of Gentoo, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage. There is like a perfect size, I think. You can be too small OR too big... with bigger forums, it is so much easier for a thread to just get buried if no one can answer it right away, even though someone else might be able to but will never see it because it's already buried. This happened to me in the Ubuntu forums. I obviously do not run Ubuntu but posted a question there regarding mtpfs with a particular MP3 player, because I figured the forums were large enough that I'd get at least a few people with the same mp3 player and they could tell me their experiences with the program. HA! Instead, I just got 0 replies and it was simply buried. With forums, bigger isn't *always* better, imo.
PPS: What is your policy on patching the source code? For example, GTK+ recently deprecated a few features that TiLP(1 and 2) depends on. The source code will now not compile. I made a patch for it to fix it (I was supposed to submit that ebuild two days ago... grah, I really should do it tomorrow!), for otherwise it just gives errors. If it is TiLp2 you have in the repository, it is literally as simple as adding one line in the source code (and is the fix the developer himself recommended), but Gentoo did not even notice and kept the source code in the tree the same even though it would no longer compile! @_@ This kind of ticked me off, personally, which is why I have to submit that patch tomorrow! ha ha
Last edited by violagirl23 (2008-01-24 06:00:10)

Debtap - A script to convert .deb packages to Arch Linux packages

I wrote this script in my free time to help people who, for any reason, want to convert a .deb to an Arch Linux package. It works in a similar way with alien (which converts .deb packages to .rpm packages and vice versa), but, unlike alien, it is focused on accuracy of conversion, trying to translate Debian/Ubuntu packages names to the correct Arch Linux packages names and store them in the dependencies fields of the .PKGINFO metadata in the final package. In other words, it won't only create an Arch package with the data of the original .deb package, but also it will try to create a valid and as accurate as possible .PKGINFO metadata file in the converted package. It uses pkgfile and pacman utilities to achieve this accuracy. The final package can be installed like any local Arch Linux package. Debtap is now available on AUR!
FAQ
Q: What "debtap" stands for?
A: DEB To Arch (Linux) Package
Q: Isn't better to download an official package or write a PKGBUILD in case I need to compile a package or convert a .deb package to an Arch Linux package?
A: Sure it is, and I truely encourage you to do so. Debtap was written to create packages that either cannot be compiled (closed source packages) or cannot be built from AUR for various reasons (error during compiling or unavailable files), as a quick 'n' dirty solution and an extra option for creating Arch Linux packages for Arch Linux users.
Q: So debtap will help me only in case I need to convert specific .deb packages to Arch Linux packages?
A: No. In case you need to write a new PKGBUILD for a package that already exists in the Debian/Ubuntu distributions, by converting its .deb package to Arch package with debtap, thanks to the packages names translator function inside the script, it can help you determine which dependencies are needed for the package you write the PKGBUILD for and complete the necessary fields.
Q: What are the minimum requirements to run this script?
A: You need to have installed these dependencies: bash, binutils (provides ar utility for extracting .deb package), pkgfile, and fakeroot. You must run at least once (preferably recently) "debtap -u" to create/update pkgfile and debtap database (you do this with root privileges).
Q: Debtap needs a lot of time to convert a package. So, why this is happening?
A: Like I said, debtap is focused on accuracy. It won't just unpack a .deb package and then repackage its data to an Arch Linux package, ignoring metadata. Depending on the speed of your processor and the package itself, conversion can take from a few seconds to several minutes.
Q: During conversion I get several warning messages, why?
A: Debtap cannot be 100% accurate for several reasons, the main reason for this is the complexity of packages names. If you want to check the freshly generated .PKGINFO and .INSTALL (this is optional file) metadata files or even fix the untranslated packages names inside .PKGINFO, debtap offers you the option to edit these files before compressing the final package.
Q: How do I use debtap?
A: The syntax is quite simple actually: debtap [option] package_filename
For example: debtap world-of-goo-demo_1.0_i386.deb
Any recommendations or questions for debtap are welcomed!
Last edited by helix (2015-05-21 22:54:17)

Hi helix. I've had trouble trying to use your script with ubuntu software from The Open University
debtap OpenUniversity-ubuntu-0.1.3.20130104.deb
==> Extracting package data...
==> Fixing possible directories structure differencies...
==> Generating .PKGINFO file...
debtap OpenUniversity-ubuntu-0.1.3.20130104.deb
==> Extracting package data...
==> Fixing possible directories structure differencies...
==> Generating .PKGINFO file...
:: Enter Packager name:
NewPepper2013
:: Enter package license (you can enter multiple licenses comma seperated):
closed
:: If you want to edit .PKGINFO file, press (1) For vi (2) For nano (3) For a cu stom editor or any other key to continue:
==> Generating .MTREE file...
==> Creating final package...
xz: unrecognized option '--1-any.pkg.tar'
xz: Try `xz --help' for more information.
mv: cannot stat â*.xzâ: No such file or directory
==> Removing leftover files...
==> Package successfully created!
The software is called NewPepper 2013 but i've not been able to find it online except on the ou website.

Dual booting win 7 and arch: cannot install grub to partition

I have read the arch wiki page on dual booting and several other sources on line, but I am still struggling to get this to work.
I am trying to dual boot arch and windows 7 on my lenovo ideapad s205. the machine comes with windows 7 pre-installed.
I shrank the win 7 partition and added an extended partition with 3 logical partions for /boot, swap, and /.
I am able to install and run arch by installing grub to the mbr. when I do this, though, I cannot boot windows. (the windows section of grub menu.lst is uncommented and points toward hda0,0. I have tried hda 0,1 as well).
I have also tried to use the windows boot loader to load arch, as described in the arch wiki page on dual booting. The problem here is that, taking this approach, I should install grub to my /boot partition, but when I try to do this, the installer only allows me to install grub to sda or sdb (the usb stick).
I have read that grub should be able to boot linux from a logical partition. Is this so?
Is there something wrong with the arch installer that it is not giving me the option of installing to a partition rather than the mbr, or is this a problem with my partition scheme, or something else?
I am tempted to remove lenovo's recovery system, but on the other hand, I have already needed to use it several times while monkeying around with installing arch.
Thanks for any help.
UPDATE:
I now have the laptop dual-booting win 7 and arch. My solution ( adapted from here: http://helms-deep.cable.nu/~rwh/blog/?p=177) was to:
1. installed arch on the partitions I had created for it, but skipped the "install bootloader" stage.
2. in win 7, I downloaded and installed EasyBCD and made an entry for arch in it. I checked the option to "Use EasyBCD's copy of GRUB"
3. When I restarted, I got a grub error because the entry in grub's menu.lst was pointing at the wrong partitions for the kernel and root.
4. So I went back into the arch live disk, mounted the boot partition and edited menu.lst.
Now when I start the laptop, the windows boot loader starts and I can choose between win 7 and arch. when I select arch, grub4dos starts and gives me the option to start arch. this is not particularly elegant (nor is it fast), so I think this solution is less than ideal, but it does work.
I'd be interestd in any thoughts about what went wrong and what a better solution would be.
thanks.
Last edited by ratchet (2011-10-10 19:09:16)

ratchet wrote:II am able to install and run arch by installing grub to the mbr. when I do this, though, I cannot boot windows. (the windows section of grub menu.lst is uncommented and points toward hda0,0. I have tried hda 0,1 as well).
Is this a typo in your post or how it was in menu.lst? Surely it should be hd0,0 and not hda0,0? The entry I have in my menu.lst is as follows:
# (2) Windows
title Windows
rootnoverify (hd0,0)
makeactive
chainloader +1
What was yours?
Last edited by JHeaton (2011-10-10 20:18:22)

Understanding Linux/Unix/Arch - not the same thing as using it

Hi there Archers!
I've been using Linux for almost a year now. I started out pretty rough, with Fedora - and uninstalled it pretty quickly as it wasn't the easiest OS to start with, and I didn't have that extra time to learn it by then. I then proceeded with Ubuntu and Mint, until I decided at the beginning of May 2013 to become an Archer/Archie. I'm proud of this decision. (y)
Using Linux and understanding it as I have learned are two entirely different thing, oh so different. I hope this isn't too much to ask for, but I would very much like the advice of some experienced users - which I presume I will find here, easily:
I want to understand Unix/Linux better, maybe not the whole Arch concept - since The Arch Way isn't that hard to understand, at least not the concept. What shall I read and do? I know there is much information out there - but I have no desire to read things that you guys don't find helpful, and I am looking for some pro-tips.
Thanks.

drcouzelis wrote:
grabbexi wrote:I want to understand Unix/Linux better
Which aspect of Unix / Linux do you want to understand better?
Options include:
Networking
Servers
System administration (user accounts, permissions)
Software development
Package management
Differences between distributions / operating systems
Kernel compiling
The Linux Standard Base (LSB)
Shared libraries
Version control software
Embedded linux
The init process, boot manager, and dual booting
File systems
And other stuff.
I was thinking a basic mix of everthing above, basically. Like: What are libraries? How does the system administration work? How does the kernel work? Etc. I mean - the answers are often not so complicated to understand on a basic level. My problem is, I don't know what questions to ask.
I think I'm looking for some "tasks" which don't require a lot of time, I don't really HAVE the need to do extremely much on my Arch - but I would love to be ABLE to do more.
bohoomil wrote:Well, I believe you mean 'using a particular Linux distribution' in the first place.
Yes, you are right - that is what I meant.
General response: Thanks to all of you so far. I'm starting to understand what I should do, just hoping I'm on the right track now.

Arch Linux 0.7.1 - my feedback

please read the post before vote
Well, I've used Arch linux for many months in late 2004 / early 2005 and then I've switched to Ubuntu...
some days ago I've installed version 0.7.1 and updated it with pacman -Syu
I've seen a lot of improvement since the last time I used it and I was near to think "ok let's switch back to Arch" until I found I that thing I really hate :!: is still here..
You can't install old versions of some packages. For example, kernel.. or.. php (ok there is one in Aur that is maybe "too" old) and mysql..
in the php/mysql example it's true that version 5 is the latest one but they (at least php) still develope the 4.x version for security and many server still have it and also many scripts supports only php4 and 5.
also, as I am a php developer, I need to test scripts with old versions.
but as I said this is just an example. I think that while you can't think to have a big repository of binaries it would be great to be able to install old versions via source.
and recompiling software by hand using old PKGBUILDS is a problem case you don't have a tool that tells you wich packaged were "aligned" with wich.. I mean.. the new php works only with the mysql5 extension so even if you build mysql by yourself it won't work with php.. and so on for apache..
anyway.. if a user is able to block a package and prevent the automatic update he should also be able to use the non-latest version of it.
I know that arch is a bleeding edge distro but this shouldn't mean that you have only the bleeding things. (see gentoo for example)
Another thing that will help a lot in my opinion is to have in the wiki 2 lists:
- one very detailed with available daemons and their use.. for example.. ok.. fam is the file alteration monitor.. but why you need it and wich are the main programs that takes advantage from it and what happens if you doesn't run it? and so on for hal, etc. ..
- one list with all available standard groups that tells user to wich group subscribe in order to be able to performe a specific action
imho this 2 lists will help the (new) user understand better what is doing and why The arch philosophy of "do it yourself and learn doing it" is great but have to be encouraged, and in fact there already is a very good documentation.
Just my 2 cents. And sorry if some one else already said this before; in this case take my post as an underline mark btw.. I'll attach a poll to it.
bye,
Giovanni.

iphitus wrote:To me this thread looks more like "i dont want to make a second package for myself, so let's get the devs to do it".
hmm.. this sounds a bit offenisve to me. Cause I don't actually need that packages as I'm not using Arch as main distro. This post was meant to give a feedback..
iphitus wrote:Especially as there isnt a huge demand for such a package, and you are most likely to be one of a very small minority to use that duplicate package.
ok I agree with this. but from my point of view it is because users that needed it too already switched to another distro..
and this leads us to this:
tomk wrote:I voted "No, there is no need", because I think this is simply an indication that Arch is not the right distro for you - it doesn't meet your requirements.
Imho, the point is that Arch have a lot of great features. The one I'd like to have is a feature that I think will just increase the number of great features Arch already have and will make Arch the right distro for more users. So users that switch to another distro will lose a lot of features that they like to get one or two that they need..
tomk wrote:This "thing that you really hate" is still there because firstly the Arch devs, and secondly Arch users, have not needed to change it. If you want to work "from within" to change that, with polls like this, feature requests, etc, I wish you the best of luck, but I think your poll result so far should tell you something about the support you can expect.
the poll was mainly for myself to get an idea of the users opinion not to change the things. And as I said it is not a change from my point of view, but just a new feature. About Arch devs I agree but about users I don't.. how you can say it if you say to me that I should change distro? In this way people that thinks like me will always remain a minority in arch community. And I don't think that having a old version of a "core" package would be against the Arch philosophy.
tomk wrote:Finally a general point, and this applies to wiki entries as well - you will get a better response if you do something, and then ask "what do you think?" instead of asking "Why doesn't Arch do this?"
I did it for the software thing with the poll and anyway also for the wiki I didn't wrote it but I thought it was clear.. For the wiki I posted my idea and there was no need for the question "what do you think" cause is a discussion forum Also please keep in mind that I wrote the original post in late night and that I'm italian so my english isn't so good :oops:
anyway.. thanks for the tip about subit a feature request and for your answers.
bye,
Giovanni.

Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for