June 2017 - Arch-ports - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-ports] Booting i686 iso in VirtualBox
by Tyzoid D 15 Jun '17

15 Jun '17

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Mr Seth Price <ssterling(a)firemail.cc> wrote: > > Is EFI enabled in the settings? I had a similar issue on my XPS 8700 till I enabled legacy BIOS. Beats me as to why, though. No, it was disabled. It will not even boot to the grub interface unless EFI is disabled. The screenshot was taken after selecting 'Boot Arch Linux (i686)' and the startup process failing. Additionally, the dual media seems to exhibit the same issue as the i686 only media.

3 7

Re: [arch-ports] Booting i686 iso in VirtualBox
by Mr Seth Price 10 Jun '17

10 Jun '17

Is EFI enabled in the settings? I had a similar issue on my XPS 8700 till I enabled legacy BIOS. Beats me as to why, though. --Sterling -------- Original message --------From: Tyzoid D <tyzoid.d(a)gmail.com> Date: 10/06/2017 00:23 (GMT-04:00) To: Discussion regarding the porting of Arch Linux to non-x86_64 architectures <arch-ports(a)archlinux.org> Subject: [arch-ports] Booting i686 iso in VirtualBox I'm starting to do some testing of the 32bit mirrors/installation media, but I can't seem to get the 32bit iso booting correctly. Since I can't copy/paste the error from virtualbox, here is a screenshot of the kernel panic: http://i.imgur.com/AkmbpV0.png I'll have another go with the dual-architecture install media, and I do have some 32bit boxes I will try installing this on, but haven't had a chance to do more extensive testing. I'm wondering if others are having this problem on their systems/physical devices. Thanks, Tyler _______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports(a)archlinux.org https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports

1 0

[arch-ports] Booting i686 iso in VirtualBox
by Tyzoid D 10 Jun '17

10 Jun '17

I'm starting to do some testing of the 32bit mirrors/installation media, but I can't seem to get the 32bit iso booting correctly. Since I can't copy/paste the error from virtualbox, here is a screenshot of the kernel panic: http://i.imgur.com/AkmbpV0.png I'll have another go with the dual-architecture install media, and I do have some 32bit boxes I will try installing this on, but haven't had a chance to do more extensive testing. I'm wondering if others are having this problem on their systems/physical devices. Thanks, Tyler

1 0

[arch-ports] What will happen to my i686 machines?
by Dmitry Kudriavtsev 09 Jun '17

09 Jun '17

Hi, I realize that i686 support is being moved to a community mirror this year. As far as I know, this will mean that pacman will give 404 errors until I change the mirrorlist. Is this correct? Will the old i686 packages still be kept? What else will need to be done? Thank you, Dmitry Kudriavtsev

3 2

[arch-ports] Phasing out i686 support
by David Daniel 09 Jun '17

09 Jun '17

Hi everybody I just read (maybe a bit late, it is from january...) the news about phasing out i686 support (https://www.archlinux.org/news/phasing-out-i686-support/). Since this news item was not posted on the 1st of april I guess this is not a joke - just to make sure: Is this really true, there won't be a 32-bit Arch Linux from November 2017? I ask this because we recently (okay, about 2-3 years ago) switched to Arch Linux for our devices, those devices run on 32-bit only and they will exist for at least the next seven years. We are in the railway industry, things don't change monthly. This fact puts us in trouble. I see that manufacturers don't produce much 32-bit hardware any more (there still is though!) but there is still a lot of 32-bit hardware around that still runs and is meant to run for quite some time. I think it's bad to discontinue 32-bit systems when still corresponding hardware is in use, this would support the same waste that other manufacturers push (e.g. XYZ that doesn't support its mobile phone one year after releasing it). Am I the only one who thinks that way? Thanks for your clarification, arguments, thoughts, ideas! Best Regards Dave

3 3

[arch-ports] Arch32 mirror size
by Tyzoid D 08 Jun '17

08 Jun '17

I was performing some server maintaince earlier, and I was shocked to find the size of the 32bit repo was riviling that of the mainline repo, containing both 32bit and 64bit packages. I had thought that the mirror would be about half the size, given that there are about half as many packages: tyler@cdn:/var/www$ du -sh 32.arlm.tyzoid.com arlm.tyzoid.com 54G 32.arlm.tyzoid.com 58G arlm.tyzoid.com tyler@cdn:/var/www/32.arlm.tyzoid.com$ find . -name '*.sig' | wc -l 14026 tyler@cdn:/var/www/arlm.tyzoid.com$ find . -name '*.sig' | wc -l 34090 While not a huge deal, I am a bit surprised by this amount of disk space used by packages. Just to confirm: tyler@cdn:/var/www/32.arlm.tyzoid.com/web$ du -sh * 2.7G archisos 51G i686 856K irc-logs Anyone have any ideas what might be going on here? Is this to be expected? or is this an oversight/bug? Thanks, Tyler

2 2