- Arch-ports - lists.archlinux.org

[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

[arch-ports] mirror(s)
by Erich Eckner 01 May '17

01 May '17

Hi all, I set up read-only access via rsync to the package master server which so far only holds the isos and the irc logs (but soon, hopefully some packages too). You can reach it at rsync://mirror.archlinux32.org/archlinux32 It would be nice to drop me a short note if you plan to set up a mirror, so I can add it to the mirror list - or you just open a pull request on https://github.com/archlinux32/packages/blob/master/core/pacman-mirrorlist/… yourself. Two other thoughts regarding mirrors: 1. Maybe (at some point) it's worth to automate the addition and deletion of mirrors. I'm not sure how far archweb does this automatically, but my first attempt to get it running was not really successful - maybe someone else want's to try it? 2. Personally, I like the approach of archlinuxarm with localized mirrors: de.mirror.archlinuxarm.org, de2.mirror.archlinuxarm.org, fr.archlinuxarm.org, ... Maybe we should do it in a similar way? Cheers, Erich

2 1

[arch-ports] Do not abandon 32bit support
by sudheer k Muhammed 18 Apr '17

18 Apr '17

There is a huge user base for 32 bit systems in third world countries . I am being one of them from india.... Or else I may have to shift to Gentoo....

1 0

[arch-ports] First i686-only ISO busted for me too.
by fredbezies 02 Apr '17

02 Apr '17

I downloaded first i686 only ISO, and it doesn't boot. No splash screen... Normal? It stays stuck on boot: prompt. -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

4 4

Re: [arch-ports] Upgrade path to new build
by Alexi Funkner 02 Apr '17

02 Apr '17

On 03/30/2017 02:00 PM, arch-ports-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: >> Hi, >> >> in case you want to upgrade your i686 system to a x86 one, there are >> usually migration instruction on arch compatible websites. For example >> this one is how to move from arch gnu/linux x86 to a completely free >> distribution called parabola. >> >> https://wiki.parabola.nu/Migration_from_the_GNU/Linux_distribution_of_Arch >> >> moving to other architectures (for example i686 to x86, since ARM would >> not make any sense) is completely analogous. >> >> I really hope that I got your question right, and was able to help. >> >> Best >> Alex >> >> > So there are three problems here. The first is top-posting, please > avoid it in the future. > > The second is the thinly-veiled distro sniping. Honestly, I would have let it go were it anything but Parabola. > > Because what you're then doing is the third problem, encouraging them to go to a migration > page which reads thusly: > > Step 1: Change your mirrors > Step 2: Replace your repos and packages > Step 3: Update your bootloader > Step 4: Congratulations, you're screwed because we didn't mention until > the post-installation blurb that you now have a free system without > non-free firmware and drivers and some of your hardware may now be > broken! Step 4 is to go out and buy a new wifi dongle and/or video card. > > Libre distros are fine. This seems pretty ill-advised. Hello, What about inline? And why is bottom-posting better than top-posting? I supplied the link, because it documented well how to migrate to another arch like distribution, without booting a live medium, and going through installation once again. It intended to be a guideline, rather than a clear instruction what steps to follow. Line 10 of my reply should have made it clear. > Congratulations, you're screwed Are we on 4chan here or something? > some of you hardware may now be broken! You don't believe this yourself, do you? What's the third problem? Kind regards Alexi --

3 2

[arch-ports] dual-iso
by Erich Eckner 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

Hi i686-fans, to not loose any potential new i686-users, I moved on by forking archiso and generating a current dual-bootable iso. Currently it resides at https://eckner.net/archlinux-2017.03.25-dual.iso, but maybe somewhen in the future we can move it to some more official place ;-) The source of archiso32 resides at github: github.com/archlinux32/archiso32. I stumbled upon one question: Is it desirable to have the iso dual bootable (i686 and x86_64) or do we want a solely i686-iso? The benefit of a i686-only-iso would be, that it'd fit on a cd. The benefit of a dual-bootable one would be, that we could use archiso32 as it is right now and that you can boot any machine (32 or 64 bits) with this - obviously. Any comments are appreciated. regards, Erich

5 5

Re: [arch-ports] Upgrade path to new build
by Alexi Funkner 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

Hi, in case you want to upgrade your i686 system to a x86 one, there are usually migration instruction on arch compatible websites. For example this one is how to move from arch gnu/linux x86 to a completely free distribution called parabola. https://wiki.parabola.nu/Migration_from_the_GNU/Linux_distribution_of_Arch moving to other architectures (for example i686 to x86, since ARM would not make any sense) is completely analogous. I really hope that I got your question right, and was able to help. Best Alex > Hi, > > I recently installed 2 machines, 'home servers' with a 686 build. > Will there be an upgrade path provided or do I have to reinstall both > machines? > > regards, > Bart --

2 1