Re: [arch-general] readline 7.0 rebuild for self-maintained packages
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 11/07/2016 06:59 PM, Bastian Beischer wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I will need to rebuild some of my packages which I maintain myself for
> > readline 7.0.
> >
> > Is there a reliable way to find out which packages need a rebuild? How
> was
> > the rebuild list for the official repos made?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bastian
>
> Well, any packages which depend on readline can be assumed to require a
> rebuild...
>
> Or you could check for files which link to libhistory.so.6 or
> libreadline.so.6
>
> There is even a shell snippet which can be repurposed to do that for
> you, on the Arch website in the news feed (it was used during the C++
> ABI change)
>
Thanks,
I've used this
now
:
#!/bin/bash
while read pkg; do
mapfile -t files < <(pacman -Qlq $pkg | grep -v /$)
grep -Fq libreadline.so.6 "${files[@]}" <&- 2>/dev/null && echo $pkg
done < <(pacman -Qmq)
That's what I was looking for.
Cheers
Bastian
>
> ...
>
> readline now provides libreadline.so and packages can depend on that to
> trigger dependency errors (which are one good way of warning you a
> rebuild is necessary...)
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
>
Re: [arch-general] readline 7.0 rebuild for self-maintained packages
On 11/07/2016 06:59 PM, Bastian Beischer wrote: > Dear all, > > I will need to rebuild some of my packages which I maintain myself for > readline 7.0. > > Is there a reliable way to find out which packages need a rebuild? How was > the rebuild list for the official repos made? > > Thanks > Bastian Well, any packages which depend on readline can be assumed to require a rebuild... Or you could check for files which link to libhistory.so.6 or libreadline.so.6 There is even a shell snippet which can be repurposed to do that for you, on the Arch website in the news feed (it was used during the C++ ABI change) ... readline now provides libreadline.so and packages can depend on that to trigger dependency errors (which are one good way of warning you a rebuild is necessary...) -- Eli Schwartz
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
There is no "best enviroment" for everyone. Ask for advantages / disadvantages. Check if the answers still apply nowadays. Let's see for my personal opinion. When I started with linux I started on cinnamon / mate since it is been most closely to windows. It's also been as buggy as windows. Back then. I am sure / I hope it is much more stable nowadays. I tried a few "basic" / "specialized" and "experimental" desktops. (No offence to anyone!). None did fit my personal "one for all" requirements. Other people can't follow my "I paid for a mouse I wan't to use it" philosophy. With such a "noob" philosophy back then there had been KDE, gnome and mate/cinnamon. One aspect is important: no matter which decission you take (KDE or another): GTK and QT can be very well be used in parallel. So an argument like "if you go for gnome you can't use Kaffeine" is bullshit. QT and GTK can coexistent and nowadays with the right themes you won't actually be able to say which app is using what. Back to the 3 major players: . KDE looks close to Windows and fancy. QT is closed sw. In my personal opinion KDE offers too many configurations (early plasma) and is been laggy (KDE 4). . Cinnamon is been wonderful. Unfortunately very buggy. (appr. 3 yrs ago) . Gnome is ugly. Very ugly. Ever seen a "Adwaita"-themed window header? (still valid) Well: I stayed with Gnome. While writing this I still use QT- applications (namely I watch TV using Kaffeine on my second screen). Just give every DE a try and after u decided look out for themes and customizations. There are plenty out there. In most cases for all big players. Eg. yakuake for qt/KDE and guake for gtk. As for Gnome: I use arc-theme and viola, it looks bautiful now. I added guake, dash-to-dock extension and a few other things. Nowadays I would not even consider KDE. Anyway, yours may be still KDE. Or Gnome. Or Cinnamon. Or Enlightment. Or any other. A friend uses enlightment and won't consider any other. Let me know if u have a valid reason for one specific. On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 16:58 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote: > On 11/06/2016 04:12 PM, Maykel Franco via arch-general wrote: > > Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the > > question. > > > > I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes > > it > > is very heavy. Do you think? > > > > I agree with the remainder, the choice is yours. That said, I built > TDE (KDE3) for Arch for years after chakra stopped building kdemod3, > and > that was (and still is) my all time favorite. .I've recently started > using Plasma, and while it is a behemoth, it is relatively well > behaved > from a resources standpoint. Gnome, I thoroughly enjoyed gnome 2. My > experience with gnome 3 was much like my experience with KDE4. > > It all boils down to what do you need your desktop to do? Do you > rely > on any of the apps unique to any one desktop? (e.g. I like > kate/kwrite > and I like the tabbed interface to konsole) Were it not for those 3 > apps, I could care less which desktop I use. I like fluxbox as a > minimal > desktop (any of the boxtop desktops are pretty much the same -- > sawfish > is a little too bare bones for me) > > The midlevel desktop goes to XFCE, capable, relatively full suite > of > basic apps, but it too has experienced growing pains over the past > two > years. > > Gnome or KDE - take your pick. Both are essentially a moving target > at > this point. Both are more than capable and both provided just about > all > you need built in. > > Best/Favorite is in the eye of the beholder... >
[arch-general] readline 7.0 rebuild for self-maintained packages
Dear all, I will need to rebuild some of my packages which I maintain myself for readline 7.0. Is there a reliable way to find out which packages need a rebuild? How was the rebuild list for the official repos made? Thanks Bastian -- Bastian Beischer RWTH Aachen University of Technology @RWTH Aachen Office: 28 C 203 Phone: +49-241-80-27205 E-mail: beisc...@physik.rwth-aachen.de Address: I. Physikalisches Institut B, Sommerfeldstr. 14, D-52074 Aachen @CERN Office: Bdg 32-4-B12 Phone: +41-22-76-75750 E-mail: bastian.beisc...@cern.ch Address: CERN, CH-1211 Geneve 23
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
On 11/06/2016 04:12 PM, Maykel Franco via arch-general wrote: > Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question. > > I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it > is very heavy. Do you think? > I agree with the remainder, the choice is yours. That said, I built TDE (KDE3) for Arch for years after chakra stopped building kdemod3, and that was (and still is) my all time favorite. .I've recently started using Plasma, and while it is a behemoth, it is relatively well behaved from a resources standpoint. Gnome, I thoroughly enjoyed gnome 2. My experience with gnome 3 was much like my experience with KDE4. It all boils down to what do you need your desktop to do? Do you rely on any of the apps unique to any one desktop? (e.g. I like kate/kwrite and I like the tabbed interface to konsole) Were it not for those 3 apps, I could care less which desktop I use. I like fluxbox as a minimal desktop (any of the boxtop desktops are pretty much the same -- sawfish is a little too bare bones for me) The midlevel desktop goes to XFCE, capable, relatively full suite of basic apps, but it too has experienced growing pains over the past two years. Gnome or KDE - take your pick. Both are essentially a moving target at this point. Both are more than capable and both provided just about all you need built in. Best/Favorite is in the eye of the beholder... -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] Single Drive Fresh Install (mbr/grub2) Fails to boot (can boot existing from .iso??)
On 11/07/2016 03:24 PM, Rijul Gulati via arch-general wrote: > Also, I see "customised boot" option for UEFI. > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HP_EliteBook_840_G1 > Tried this? (If it's applicable for your system) Thanks Rijul, I've been though the page several times. The setup itself wasn't applicable to the 8760w as all UEFI was disabled (it was experimental only from HP in my model laptop) so there are no paths in bootmgr, etc. I may try and configure it that way, but with all UEFI disabled, there is something else (probably simple) that is causing this to fail. The bewildering part of this whole problem is "How the hell is the .iso booting so easily, while I can't do the same thing from the hard drive?" Especially since simply choosing to boot from the .iso works flawlessly. Everybody gets one of these issues every once in a while, this one is mine -- and it's a doozie... -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:25:38AM +, Rijul Gulati via arch-general wrote: > Its a matter of preference really. XFCE is lightweight. I myself use GNOME > and XFCE (depends on my daily mood :P) > If KDE is heavy for you, you could try XFCE. > > On Mon 7 Nov, 2016, 13:48 Ben Oliver via arch-general, < > arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > I agree with all the above. > > > > XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE. > > > > Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then > > found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched. > > Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat > > limiting if you actually know Haskell). > > I'm with theem on this one. It's definitely a matter of preference. You should try them all; and see what you like from each DE/WM, what you dislike, what you hate, what you can work around, etc. Then decide on what you feel most comfortable using. Personally, I've found my love in i3, though I sometimes switch to KDE Plasma on my desktop and to MATE on my laptop (depending on the mood). HTH, --Jonathan
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
I use gnome myself. I am an orca user so gnome good for accessibility. Mate is also good. There is a couple of things you have to odo to get mate to work though gnome just works rite out of the box. Matthew On 11/06/2016 05:49 PM, Lukas Rose wrote: On 06 Nov 2016, at 23:15, Bruno Pagani wrote: Le 06/11/2016 à 23:12, Maykel Franco via arch-general a écrit : Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question. I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it is very heavy. Do you think? There is no such thing like “the best DE”. This is a matter of taste/desired features, dot. Most people I know running Arch use i3, personally I use KDE Plasma. ;) Bruno You have to find out yourself what suits your usage best. I love XFCE for its simplicity, lightweightness and Linux-ish style (category bases menus as typical for Linux, customizable panels with applets etc). No matter what DE you use, docky is often a nice addition as a program launch menu.
Re: [arch-general] Single Drive Fresh Install (mbr/grub2) Fails to boot (can boot existing from .iso??)
I cannot say exactly what's causing this issue. I'd suggest after enabling UEFI from BIOS, try re-installing grub2 and regenerating grub2.cfg maybe? If this did not work, try re-creating partitions (that is set ESP on /dev/sda1 and set boot-flag ON on 1) . Also there is no need for BIOS boot partition since ESP is already provided. Then install grub and boot? Also, I see "customised boot" option for UEFI. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HP_EliteBook_840_G1 Tried this? (If it's applicable for your system) On Tue 8 Nov, 2016, 01:38 David C. Rankin, wrote: > On 11/07/2016 11:56 AM, Rijul Gulati via arch-general wrote: > > A quick suggestion : Why not try systemd-boot instead of grub? (Since > now > > arch is installed in UEFI) No harm trying ;) > > Nothing ventured, nothing gained... > > Well, it is now apparent why UEFI is disabled, when enabling it in the > bios, you get a large warning that: > > UEFI implementation in this bios is experimental and it is recommended > that you disable 'Disk Lock' (HP drive encryption) and Pre-Boot > Authentication before enabling UEFI. > > So, I did. Then tried to boot, and it paused for a minute, moved the > cursor to about mid-screen, and then went though the Legacy boot order > and failed again with Disk Error '0F3' (no operating system found). > > So, I stuck the USB back in, booted, chose existing, and I'm up and > running again -- and back to square-one on "Why does this box boot fine > from the .iso, but will not boot from the hard drive?" > > Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep picking away, but if anybody has > any other thoughts or diagnostics to run to help explain this, I would > appreciate it. > > -- > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. >
Re: [arch-general] WLAN
On 11/06/2016 03:56 PM, Silvio Siefke wrote: > Hello, > > i've installed Arch Linux today on Desktop (HP Elitebook 2540p) but > wifi work not. I become message "Wireless networks disabled by hardware > switch" I'm sorry if this sounds basic, but after setting up an EliteBook 8760w with wifi, I found the "hardware switch" (the wireless button at the top-right of the keyboard on my laptop) must be on. You have checked to insure you have the switch on right? Now if I could just get it to boot without the iso, I'd be fine. There are a couple of articles in the wiki about HP EliteBooks that may help with the wireless, check: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HP_EliteBook_840_G1 and see if any tips there help. All I did was follow the wireless networking page to configure wireless with wpa_supplicant on the elitebook and it worked and responds to the hardware switch. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] WLAN
Just a thought but when you type ip link what do you get? If you have more than one network device, you will want to make sure that dhcpcd is enabled with sudo systemctl enable dhcpcd@x.vservice whare x is the interface name you want to use. HTH. Matthew On 11/06/2016 05:12 PM, Silvio Siefke wrote: On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 23:03:15 +0100 Christian Rebischke wrote: rfkill was already the right direction. You have to unblock the phy0 device via rfkill. Try `rfkill unblock 0` This should work. this work not. I try it with blacklisting what found in forum, I try with block and unblock. Nothing change. [sisibox siefke]# rfkill list 0: phy0: Wireless LAN Soft blocked: no Hard blocked: yes 2: hci0: Bluetooth Soft blocked: no Hard blocked: no [sisibox siefke]# rfkill unblock 0 [sisibox siefke]# rfkill list 0: phy0: Wireless LAN Soft blocked: no Hard blocked: yes 2: hci0: Bluetooth Soft blocked: no Hard blocked: no [sisibox siefke]# cat /etc/modprobe.d/hp.conf blacklist hp_wmi I try since 6 hours I really not understand whereis problem. Thank you Silvio
Re: [arch-general] Single Drive Fresh Install (mbr/grub2) Fails to boot (can boot existing from .iso??)
On 11/07/2016 11:56 AM, Rijul Gulati via arch-general wrote: > A quick suggestion : Why not try systemd-boot instead of grub? (Since now > arch is installed in UEFI) No harm trying ;) Nothing ventured, nothing gained... Well, it is now apparent why UEFI is disabled, when enabling it in the bios, you get a large warning that: UEFI implementation in this bios is experimental and it is recommended that you disable 'Disk Lock' (HP drive encryption) and Pre-Boot Authentication before enabling UEFI. So, I did. Then tried to boot, and it paused for a minute, moved the cursor to about mid-screen, and then went though the Legacy boot order and failed again with Disk Error '0F3' (no operating system found). So, I stuck the USB back in, booted, chose existing, and I'm up and running again -- and back to square-one on "Why does this box boot fine from the .iso, but will not boot from the hard drive?" Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep picking away, but if anybody has any other thoughts or diagnostics to run to help explain this, I would appreciate it. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] Single Drive Fresh Install (mbr/grub2) Fails to boot (can boot existing from .iso??)
A quick suggestion : Why not try systemd-boot instead of grub? (Since now arch is installed in UEFI) No harm trying ;) On Mon 7 Nov, 2016, 23:05 David C. Rankin, wrote: > On 11/05/2016 04:38 AM, Simon Brulhart wrote: > > I may be missing something, but is there a chance that the bios just > > doesn't wait long enough for the disk to turn on? > > On some laptops this sometimes happen to me when trying to boot an USB > > harddisk. The disk isn't detected at all by the bios, but generally > > rebooting with the disk already turned on fixes the issue. > > I've also seen an option on some BIOSes to wait for a few additional > > seconds at boot before enumerating drives, indicating that this may be a > > common issue. > > > > Simon > > Simon, > > Thanks, but no, I eliminated that by choosing the boot options menu > (e.g. F9) on boot which allowed 30 seconds or so as I pondered the > options for the drives to spin up, no it is something quirky with this > laptop that I have to figure out, but I'm totally stuck. > > I prepared a fresh summary of my ordeal in hopes of getting some > wisdom to help with this mystery. Here is the summary to date: > > I need a miracle (or just some good help) to find out why I can boot > from the .iso and "Choose existing OS" just fine, but cannot get this > laptop to find and boot grub otherwise. (UEFI is *completely* disabled > in the BIOS and it boots win10 in Legacy mode fine) I have now exhausted > all that I can figure out based on my decade and a half of Linux use and > based on the wikis: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/EFI_System_Partition > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HP_EliteBook_840_G1 (uses EFI mode) > > I have configured and tried simple MBR boot with the following setup: > > # fdisk -l /dev/sda > Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes > Disklabel type: dos > Disk identifier: 0xff7d45aa > > Device Boot StartEndSectors Size Id Type > /dev/sda1 2048 1953525167 1953523120 931.5G 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 * 409610280951024000 500M 83 Linux > /dev/sda6 1030144 105887743 10485760050G 83 Linux > /dev/sda7105889792 1951383551 1845493760 880G 83 Linux > /dev/sda8 1951385600 19535251672139568 1G 82 Linux swap / > Solaris > > grub isn't seen on boot, but popping the .iso on USB in, choosing > "Boot existing OS", hitting 'tab' and changing 'hd0 0' to 'hd1 0' boots > Arch fine. > > I next tried with GPT and a 'bios_boot' partition: > > # fdisk -l /dev/sda > Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes > Disklabel type: gpt > Disk identifier: 00B6A48C-CBDB-4071-A1EC-97FA828A6C26 > > Device StartEndSectors Size Type > /dev/sda12048 4095 20481M BIOS boot > /dev/sda2409610280951024000 500M Linux filesystem > /dev/sda3 1028096 105885695 104857600 50G Linux filesystem > /dev/sda4 105885696 1949282303 1843396608 879G Linux filesystem > /dev/sda5 1949282304 195137945520971521G Linux swap > > same result, grub not found on its own, but booting from USB works fine. > > Next, stranger things being possible, I decided to try a full UEFI > setup thinking maybe the Legacy mode for this laptop uses some contrived > boot scheme that requires the esp partition to be present. so I > re-partitioned the drive and went though the UEFI setup: > > # fdisk -l /dev/sda > Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes > Disklabel type: gpt > Disk identifier: 00B6A48C-CBDB-4071-A1EC-97FA828A6C26 > > Device StartEndSectors Size Type > /dev/sda12048 4095 20481M BIOS boot > /dev/sda2409610280951024000 500M EFI System > /dev/sda3 1028096 105885695 104857600 50G Linux filesystem > /dev/sda4 105885696 1949282303 1843396608 879G Linux filesystem > /dev/sda5 1949282304 195137945520971521G Linux swap > > Still, grub isn't seen on boot, but now "Choose existing OS" starts > grub, but then throws the error of "unrecognized partition type" (I > presume is due to the UEFI setup while UEFI is disabled in the BIOS) > > So I'm stuck. This box boots from the iso perfectly. After "Choose > existing OS", I pull the USB drive, and the machine works flawlessly. > (I've got a full plasma/KDE5 setup installed with wpa_supplicant WPA > wifi, bluetooth, synaptics touchpad, ieee-1394,
Re: [arch-general] Single Drive Fresh Install (mbr/grub2) Fails to boot (can boot existing from .iso??)
On 11/05/2016 04:38 AM, Simon Brulhart wrote: > I may be missing something, but is there a chance that the bios just > doesn't wait long enough for the disk to turn on? > On some laptops this sometimes happen to me when trying to boot an USB > harddisk. The disk isn't detected at all by the bios, but generally > rebooting with the disk already turned on fixes the issue. > I've also seen an option on some BIOSes to wait for a few additional > seconds at boot before enumerating drives, indicating that this may be a > common issue. > > Simon Simon, Thanks, but no, I eliminated that by choosing the boot options menu (e.g. F9) on boot which allowed 30 seconds or so as I pondered the options for the drives to spin up, no it is something quirky with this laptop that I have to figure out, but I'm totally stuck. I prepared a fresh summary of my ordeal in hopes of getting some wisdom to help with this mystery. Here is the summary to date: I need a miracle (or just some good help) to find out why I can boot from the .iso and "Choose existing OS" just fine, but cannot get this laptop to find and boot grub otherwise. (UEFI is *completely* disabled in the BIOS and it boots win10 in Legacy mode fine) I have now exhausted all that I can figure out based on my decade and a half of Linux use and based on the wikis: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/EFI_System_Partition https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HP_EliteBook_840_G1 (uses EFI mode) I have configured and tried simple MBR boot with the following setup: # fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0xff7d45aa Device Boot StartEndSectors Size Id Type /dev/sda1 2048 1953525167 1953523120 931.5G 5 Extended /dev/sda5 * 409610280951024000 500M 83 Linux /dev/sda6 1030144 105887743 10485760050G 83 Linux /dev/sda7105889792 1951383551 1845493760 880G 83 Linux /dev/sda8 1951385600 19535251672139568 1G 82 Linux swap / Solaris grub isn't seen on boot, but popping the .iso on USB in, choosing "Boot existing OS", hitting 'tab' and changing 'hd0 0' to 'hd1 0' boots Arch fine. I next tried with GPT and a 'bios_boot' partition: # fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: 00B6A48C-CBDB-4071-A1EC-97FA828A6C26 Device StartEndSectors Size Type /dev/sda12048 4095 20481M BIOS boot /dev/sda2409610280951024000 500M Linux filesystem /dev/sda3 1028096 105885695 104857600 50G Linux filesystem /dev/sda4 105885696 1949282303 1843396608 879G Linux filesystem /dev/sda5 1949282304 195137945520971521G Linux swap same result, grub not found on its own, but booting from USB works fine. Next, stranger things being possible, I decided to try a full UEFI setup thinking maybe the Legacy mode for this laptop uses some contrived boot scheme that requires the esp partition to be present. so I re-partitioned the drive and went though the UEFI setup: # fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: 00B6A48C-CBDB-4071-A1EC-97FA828A6C26 Device StartEndSectors Size Type /dev/sda12048 4095 20481M BIOS boot /dev/sda2409610280951024000 500M EFI System /dev/sda3 1028096 105885695 104857600 50G Linux filesystem /dev/sda4 105885696 1949282303 1843396608 879G Linux filesystem /dev/sda5 1949282304 195137945520971521G Linux swap Still, grub isn't seen on boot, but now "Choose existing OS" starts grub, but then throws the error of "unrecognized partition type" (I presume is due to the UEFI setup while UEFI is disabled in the BIOS) So I'm stuck. This box boots from the iso perfectly. After "Choose existing OS", I pull the USB drive, and the machine works flawlessly. (I've got a full plasma/KDE5 setup installed with wpa_supplicant WPA wifi, bluetooth, synaptics touchpad, ieee-1394, all working just fine, etc.., e.g. I drafted this on kwrite and sent it via thunderbird from this same darn box) I just can't get this box to find grub to save my life. I need help figuring out how the .iso is booting in Legacy mode just fine, while I can't do the same thing from the hard drive. If this box can see and boot the .iso just fine, what cou
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
Here's to GNOME. Am 07.11.2016 um 07:47 schrieb David Demelier via arch-general: > Le 6 nov. 2016 11:12 PM, "Maykel Franco via arch-general" < > arch-general@archlinux.org> a écrit : >> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the > question. >> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it >> is very heavy. Do you think? > It's matter of taste. However, Arch provides vanilla packages, making best > desktop support as we do not install/recommend/focus a default desktop like > big end user distribution (e.g. GNOME for fedora, KDE for OpenSuSE). > > I personally use and love GNOME though. >
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
Its a matter of preference really. XFCE is lightweight. I myself use GNOME and XFCE (depends on my daily mood :P) If KDE is heavy for you, you could try XFCE. On Mon 7 Nov, 2016, 13:48 Ben Oliver via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > I agree with all the above. > > XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE. > > Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then > found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched. > Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat > limiting if you actually know Haskell). >
Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux
I agree with all the above. XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE. Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched. Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat limiting if you actually know Haskell).
