[arch-releng] final testing images
new images are done. version: 2010.05.13 these are the images I want to rename to an official 2010.05 release after testing. http://build.archlinux.org/isos/Changelog http://build.archlinux.org/isos/ how should they be tested? for every file, that is: archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso I want to get a report from someone that an installation went fine. what kind of install doesn't really matter. manual, automatic, autoprepare, net/core whatever. this has been tested enough before, so any kind of install with each single image. On top of that, I want: A) confirmation for virtio_pci and virtio_blk on the install ISO's initramfs http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19401?project=6 B) at least one installation performed from a usb stick, using any of the above images. So if you test: send a reply mentioning which file you tested, and optionally if you can confirm A/B thanks for you help, Dieter
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
new images are done. version: 2010.05.13
these are the images I want to rename to an official 2010.05 release after testing.
http://build.archlinux.org/isos/Changelog http://build.archlinux.org/isos/
how should they be tested?
for every file, that is:
archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso
I want to get a report from someone that an installation went fine. what kind of install doesn't really matter. manual, automatic, autoprepare, net/core whatever. this has been tested enough before, so any kind of install with each single image.
On top of that, I want: A) confirmation for virtio_pci and virtio_blk on the install ISO's initramfs http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19401?project=6 B) at least one installation performed from a usb stick, using any of the above images.
So if you test: send a reply mentioning which file you tested, and optionally if you can confirm A/B
thanks for you help, Dieter
I just successfully installed arch64 from a usb stick, using archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso. Installed it with lvm on top of dmcrypt, without any problems.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Johan Dahlberg <jodahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
new images are done. version: 2010.05.13
these are the images I want to rename to an official 2010.05 release after testing.
http://build.archlinux.org/isos/Changelog http://build.archlinux.org/isos/
how should they be tested?
for every file, that is:
archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso
I want to get a report from someone that an installation went fine. what kind of install doesn't really matter. manual, automatic, autoprepare, net/core whatever. this has been tested enough before, so any kind of install with each single image.
On top of that, I want: A) confirmation for virtio_pci and virtio_blk on the install ISO's initramfs http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19401?project=6 B) at least one installation performed from a usb stick, using any of the above images.
So if you test: send a reply mentioning which file you tested, and optionally if you can confirm A/B
thanks for you help, Dieter
I just successfully installed arch64 from a usb stick, using archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso. Installed it with lvm on top of dmcrypt, without any problems.
Tested: archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso Medium: USB Victim: HP Mini 311 laptop, dual boot with Windows 7 Verdict- wow, this has gotten really smooth. Done in 20 minutes after having not done an install in some time. Thanks for all the work you've put into it. Two notes: * When trying to set up the system time, the whole machine hung for like 45 seconds. Not sure what happened there but couldn't find any bad output. * Partition mapping could be a bit more useful. I had to page back and forth between `cat /proc/partitions` and `parted -l` output to make sure I didn't royally F things up. I'll see if I can turn this into a feature request and maybe even a patch. -Dan
Am 13.05.2010 16:54, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
how should they be tested?
I can perform "Does it boot" tests on virtual hardware, and maybe also on real hardware, but that is more time-consuming.
for every file, that is:
archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso
I want to get a report from someone that an installation went fine. what kind of install doesn't really matter. manual, automatic, autoprepare, net/core whatever. this has been tested enough before, so any kind of install with each single image.
On top of that, I want: A) confirmation for virtio_pci and virtio_blk on the install ISO's initramfs http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19401?project=6
Booting with '-drive if=virtio,media=cdrom,...' now works in qemu, so that confirms that virtio works in initramfs. After initramfs completed, virtio always worked properly.
B) at least one installation performed from a usb stick, using any of the above images.
Again, I can offer boot-tests here, I may need to buy a new stick, as all of my current ones are in use somewhere. Tests I performed so far: Booting archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso in i686 and x86_64 mode on qemu with a virtio CD drive and with an 'IDE emulation' CD drive. I don't have the time to actually test installations though. I performend an installation with an older AIF snapshot (end of Feb. or beginning of March), which was entirely fine.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
I don't have the time to actually test installations though. I performend an installation with an older AIF snapshot (end of Feb. or beginning of March), which was entirely fine.
Same here, otherwise I'd help you out. I performed a full AIF installation a bit ago when I sent the email to the list regarding wireless configuration. I don't think AIF has changed much since then - considering I follow the RSS feed. So you can count that as a 75% thumbs up
On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:43:56 +0200 Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 13.05.2010 16:54, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
how should they be tested?
I can perform "Does it boot" tests on virtual hardware, and maybe also on real hardware, but that is more time-consuming.
actually that was not a literal question, it was more of a "to know how they should be tested, read on" so anyway, checked this far: * libvirt stuff * usb boot from archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso * archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso installation I think i should be less strict and accept "boots fine" tests for further images. in that case also archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso is done. so if people can boot the other 4 files, I think these are good to go. but preferably do it on a real system. Dieter
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
new images are done.
Cool. I grabbed the latest archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso. My wireless fails to initialize. Otherwise, it boots fine. My card is a RaLink RT2500 (a PCI card). dmesg output contains the following lines: phy0: Failed to initialize wep: -2 phy0 -> rt2x00lib_probe_dev: Error - Failed to initialize hw. rt2500pci 0000:00:09.0: PCI INT A disabled rt2500pci: probe of 0000:00:09.0 failed with error -2 There's a known workaround. Just remove and reload the driver once the system is up. -- Chris
Am 15.05.2010 14:12, schrieb Chris Brannon:
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
new images are done.
Cool. I grabbed the latest archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso. My wireless fails to initialize. Otherwise, it boots fine. My card is a RaLink RT2500 (a PCI card). dmesg output contains the following lines: phy0: Failed to initialize wep: -2 phy0 -> rt2x00lib_probe_dev: Error - Failed to initialize hw. rt2500pci 0000:00:09.0: PCI INT A disabled rt2500pci: probe of 0000:00:09.0 failed with error -2
There's a known workaround. Just remove and reload the driver once the system is up.
I thought that problem was limited to the Talking Arch CD, seems I was wrong.
Am 15.05.2010 14:12, schrieb Chris Brannon:
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
new images are done.
Cool. I grabbed the latest archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso. My wireless fails to initialize. Otherwise, it boots fine. My card is a RaLink RT2500 (a PCI card). dmesg output contains the following lines: phy0: Failed to initialize wep: -2 phy0 -> rt2x00lib_probe_dev: Error - Failed to initialize hw. rt2500pci 0000:00:09.0: PCI INT A disabled rt2500pci: probe of 0000:00:09.0 failed with error -2
There's a known workaround. Just remove and reload the driver once the system is up.
The wireless issue is explained and found in this archiso commit: http://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/commit/?id=aeaec35905f0d0cbb876ab6... Dieter, I'm afraid the current images can't be "final" with this error. We'll need to rebuild.
On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:34:58 +0200 Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 15.05.2010 14:12, schrieb Chris Brannon:
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
new images are done.
Cool. I grabbed the latest archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso. My wireless fails to initialize. Otherwise, it boots fine. My card is a RaLink RT2500 (a PCI card). dmesg output contains the following lines: phy0: Failed to initialize wep: -2 phy0 -> rt2x00lib_probe_dev: Error - Failed to initialize hw. rt2500pci 0000:00:09.0: PCI INT A disabled rt2500pci: probe of 0000:00:09.0 failed with error -2
There's a known workaround. Just remove and reload the driver once the system is up.
The wireless issue is explained and found in this archiso commit: http://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/commit/?id=aeaec35905f0d0cbb876ab6...
Dieter, I'm afraid the current images can't be "final" with this error. We'll need to rebuild.
thanks for figuring this out thomas. i'll do a rebuild soonish. this doesn't affect or void the testing that has been done until now, afaict. Dieter
Thomas Bachler wrote:
The wireless issue is explained and found in this archiso commit:
Awsome, and all is well. Thomas, thank you for the fix! -- Chris
On 05/13/2010 08:54 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
new images are done. version: 2010.05.13
these are the images I want to rename to an official 2010.05 release after testing.
http://build.archlinux.org/isos/Changelog http://build.archlinux.org/isos/
how should they be tested?
for every file, that is:
archlinux-2010.05.13-core-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-dual.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-i686.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso
I want to get a report from someone that an installation went fine. what kind of install doesn't really matter. manual, automatic, autoprepare, net/core whatever. this has been tested enough before, so any kind of install with each single image.
On top of that, I want: A) confirmation for virtio_pci and virtio_blk on the install ISO's initramfs http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19401?project=6 B) at least one installation performed from a usb stick, using any of the above images.
So if you test: send a reply mentioning which file you tested, and optionally if you can confirm A/B
thanks for you help, Dieter
archlinux-2010.05.13-netinstall-x86_64.iso archlinux-2010.05.13-core-x86_64.iso Both boot fine from usb. Later installed both with KVM. Boot with drive if=virtio,media=cdrom seems to be fine now.
participants (7)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Chris Brannon
-
Dan McGee
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Johan Dahlberg
-
jwbirdsong
-
Thomas Bächler