[arch-general] Question regarding the ArchLinux iso core image
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 03:17 -0400, Keith Hinton wrote:
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
My prefered way of installing any linux distribution is using bootstrap tools. For Debian this is debootstrap, for Archlinux this is pacman -r. The point of having an installer with packages on the ISO is that you don't always have the possibility to do a network installation.
On 05/18/2010 03:34 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 03:17 -0400, Keith Hinton wrote:
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
My prefered way of installing any linux distribution is using bootstrap tools. For Debian this is debootstrap, for Archlinux this is pacman -r. The point of having an installer with packages on the ISO is that you don't always have the possibility to do a network installation.
What about the install scripts then? pacman -r (and -b) don't necessarily assure that the install scripts behave properly.
On 18/05/10 21:21, Matthew Monaco wrote:
On 05/18/2010 03:34 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 03:17 -0400, Keith Hinton wrote:
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
My prefered way of installing any linux distribution is using bootstrap tools. For Debian this is debootstrap, for Archlinux this is pacman -r. The point of having an installer with packages on the ISO is that you don't always have the possibility to do a network installation.
What about the install scripts then? pacman -r (and -b) don't necessarily assure that the install scripts behave properly.
Really... they should do.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:26:51PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/05/10 21:21, Matthew Monaco wrote:
On 05/18/2010 03:34 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 03:17 -0400, Keith Hinton wrote:
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
My prefered way of installing any linux distribution is using bootstrap tools. For Debian this is debootstrap, for Archlinux this is pacman -r. The point of having an installer with packages on the ISO is that you don't always have the possibility to do a network installation.
What about the install scripts then? pacman -r (and -b) don't necessarily assure that the install scripts behave properly.
Really... they should do.
They do? from pacman.log: " [2010-04-29 23:15] warning: /mnt/root/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf installed as /mnt/root/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf.pacnew │ [2010-04-29 23:15] upgraded openssl (0.9.8l-1 -> 1.0.0-2) │ [2010-04-29 23:15] Clearing symlinks in /etc/ssl/certs...done. │ [2010-04-29 23:15] Updating certificates in /etc/ssl/certs... 141 added, 0 removed; done. │ [2010-04-29 23:15] Running hooks in /etc/ca-certificates/update.d....done. │ [2010-04-29 23:15] upgraded ca-certificates (20090814-2 -> 20090814-3) " Though "-r" was set to "/mnt/root" the install script seems to update /etc/ssl/certs. I am not really sure if it actually applied to the new root "/mnt/root" or only to /etc/ssl. It was some time ago. I remember I reran "/usr/sbin/update-ca-certificates --fresh" when I booted into the new system. --
Am 18.05.2010 13:42, schrieb vlad:
Though "-r" was set to "/mnt/root" the install script seems to update /etc/ssl/certs. I am not really sure if it actually applied to the new root "/mnt/root" or only to /etc/ssl. It was some time ago. I remember I reran "/usr/sbin/update-ca-certificates --fresh" when I booted into the new system.
Before executing the install scriptlet, pacman chroots into /mnt/root.
Am 18.05.2010 13:26, schrieb Allan McRae:
What about the install scripts then? pacman -r (and -b) don't necessarily assure that the install scripts behave properly.
Really... they should do.
There are certain problems if you don't create $BASE/dev/null beforehand or bind-mount a fully-populated /dev folder into $BASE.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Keith Hinton <keithint1234@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi. I've recently seen threads on this list pertaining to interesting issues with the Arch Linux core isos. I haven't had that problem in my primary tests of those Isos in particular. Is there any reason why a successful installation may occur in one environment over another? Or is this a common Linux problem. Thanks for answering my question. I hope that the rest of you folks have successful Core installations, however a net-install is the only real way to isntall Arch Linux. I do not see the point of the core installer media, personally. Why would one wish to use that? A snapshot will become outdated in a flash, and all of you archers know this. As soon as a newer package version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly. Or will be, given a few weeks/months/years/whatever. I therefore have always installed from what I believe to be the Arch-Way, wich is installing via the Internet alone to have an updated system. Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
I disagree. Some of us do not have fast/reliable internet connections, and would rather postpone the search for reliable download speeds till after the machine is bare-bones working (can boot, has network, basically has all of core) instead of in between the install process.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 05:37:38PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Does anyone agree/disagree with my idea on the proper way to install Arch? :D Regards, --Keith
I disagree. Some of us do not have fast/reliable internet connections, and would rather postpone the search for reliable download speeds till after the machine is bare-bones working (can boot, has network, basically has all of core) instead of in between the install process.
I agree (with Ng Oon-Ee). In one of the situations I work in the install is going through an http proxy that systematically corrupts some packages (always the same, IIRC perl, man-pages, and another one), making the netinstall fail. No chance to get this fixed, unless you have months of time to waste discussing with city IT officials who think that Linux is evil. Once a basic system is set up it's possible to work around this, with the installer it isn't. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Am 18.05.2010 11:56, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
I agree (with Ng Oon-Ee). In one of the situations I work in the install is going through an http proxy that systematically corrupts some packages (always the same, IIRC perl, man-pages, and another one)
Just a side remark: In my opinion, whenever you provide internet access to a "client" (whatever that means), altering the traffic should be illegal and punishable by imprisonment.
participants (8)
-
Allan McRae
-
Fons Adriaensen
-
Jan de Groot
-
Keith Hinton
-
Matthew Monaco
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Thomas Bächler
-
vlad