On 11/23/2013 07:51 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jonathan Steel mail@jsteel.org wrote:

...

Hi,

I would like to propose including clonezilla [1][2] in the installation media. It provides an ncurses menu for backing up and restoring partitions/disks using partclone, which is already included (I maintain both).

As well as being a small and useful tool, I have another motive for getting it added.

Clonezilla currently offer live media iso files of Debian and Ubuntu-based operating systems running clonezilla. By including clonezilla in our installation media they are happy to add it as an alternative version, offering an Arch-based iso that you can run clonezilla on.

Are there any objections to this?

Thanks,

[1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/clonezilla/ [2] http://clonezilla.org

-- Jonathan Steel Trusted User

If [1] and [2] is the list of the packages included on the iso, the only packages that need to be added are bc 86.8 KB clonezilla 906.7 KB * drbl 1.1 MB * pigz 64.1 KB sshfs 30.1 KB

I marked clonezilla and drbl with '*' as they are architecture-independent packages - arch=('any'). The package size of these 8 [3] packages is ~2.5 MB.

[1] https://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/plain/configs/releng/packages.bot... [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/plain/configs/releng/packages.x86... [3] 32 and 64-bit versions of bc, pigz and sshfs + clonezilla and drbl

As said before, there is a +1 from me ;)

On Sat 23 Nov 2013 at 18:41, Dave Reisner wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 08:45:02AM +0000, Jonathan Steel wrote:

...

Hi,

I would like to propose including clonezilla [1][2] in the installation media. It provides an ncurses menu for backing up and restoring partitions/disks using partclone, which is already included (I maintain both).

I'm of the opinion that our ISO is already way too big. Adding a tool which doesn't provide any functionality we don't already have seems like a waste.

It, along with drbl (dependency) would bring extra functionality, I belittled it calling it just a "menu"; it is more than that. I would not suggest this would it not just make a few MB difference. I think of the iso as a recovery tool as well as installation media; maybe we need both or to decide on one. In terms of "installation media only" the inclusion of software would be obvious; "do you need this during installation?", but while it includes useful software for other purposes, I believe clonezilla/drbl would be a good addition.

...

As well as being a small and useful tool, I have another motive for getting it added.

Clonezilla currently offer live media iso files of Debian and Ubuntu-based operating systems running clonezilla. By including clonezilla in our installation media they are happy to add it as an alternative version, offering an Arch-based iso that you can run clonezilla on.

I don't understand why this is motivation. What's the benefit to Arch?

To make Clonezilla more convenient/more accessible; currently if an Arch user wants to use clonezilla, they will most likely need to use archiso to generate their own iso and boot that (partitions need to be unmounted), or use Clonezilla's Debian or Ubuntu versions. I see this benefiting Arch Clonezilla users, and potentially bringing Clonezilla users to Arch.