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 A snapshot will become outdated in a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version is available the entire snapshot is outdated instantly.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.
