Re: [arch-general] testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

[nailz]

On 3 October 2012 00:18, Your Real Name  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:29:38PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 01/10/12 20:23, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, gt  wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 11:49:05AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > >>> On 01/10/12 11:21, Armando M. Baratti wrote:
> >  Authoritarian and despotic.
> > 
> >  My ban, please.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> Done...  and for two weeks because I had to look up what despotic
> meant.
> > >>
> > >> lol, always keep a dictionary handy. May I suggest sdcv.
> > >
> > > This poster should also be banned, since this post doesn't call for
> help
> > > nor offers it.
> > >
> > > Oops... Mine too... Now I've done it!
> > >
> > > ("The life of Brian", anyone? The lapidation sketch? Oops again: I hope
> > > Allan McRae is familiar with the word "lapidation", or it's two weeks
> > > for me too.)
> > >
> >
> > Lapidation fails when I can just punish everyone...   I am more than
> > happy to just close the list again.
> >
> > I have not because I am not "prone to panic attacks".  (Hi Pete! - here
> > is your answer who those emails go to)
> >
> > Allan
> >
>
> I'm down for seeing the list get closed again, or at least a banning
> free-for-all.
> The forum mods wouldn't tolerate this kind of childish bullshit; I don't
> see why
> the devs/ML mods need to.  There are plenty of places online to complain,
> the support
> list doesn't need this.
>


[quote]the support
list doesn't need this.[/quote]
 I too am fed up with all the dross and  i only been here a few weeks, i
mean nobody is forcing anyone to use arch, if people dont agree with the
way its heading either jump ship to another distro , or god forbid maybe
even add something constructive to arch.



-- 


  www.cirrusminor.info 
   

Re: [arch-general] Mailing list closed for 24 hours

[nailz]

Very eloquently put brethren "+1"
On Sep 27, 2012 9:33 PM, "Martín Cigorraga"  wrote:

> While I would like to support @Tobias idea of splitting the list I also
> agree with all the following emails.
> Btw, so much time using Arch and I've never heard about
> http://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux, thanks for that.
>
> I only want to add an observation to what was already said:
> Tipically all this flame seems to arise at the gates of new'n profound
> changes and as such it's perfectly understandable that these kind of things
> happens.
> We Arch Linux users are a kind of users who:
> 1. loves to know. While we are glad to solve a specific issue that's
> graying our hair, we will *not* be satisfied until we understand what the
> hell was happening and all the inner workings of that - that's a fact.
> 2. we don't like to let anybody hold our hand (well, I would let Eva Mendes
> hold mine... ) and as such we tend to be a bit grumpy about those users who
> come for help without actually _thinking_ about what can be the problem or
> at least without searching the forums, the wiki and the intertubes. On the
> other hand we are totally open to those folks that come with a problem
> explaining what's happenig, what they did and the results (in part because
> we enjoy solving these puzzles).
> 3. we are mostly self taught, autodidacts. As such we each develop an
> almost _unique_ way to interact with our systems and as such are our
> viewpoints about general GNU/Linux and F/LOSS and everything's else in
> life: yeah, we are free thinkers.
> 4. as a result of above we usually tailor our systems to our own personal
> taste and way to use it.
> 5. as a result of above we usually have a *strong* opinion about things,
> specially that things that may/will change the way we use our system - and
> here is when flames arise.
> 6. in the end we all love Arch with it's drawbacks -thankfully not many-
> and all it awesomeness, and deeply we know that while there are some
> aspects that aren't exactly the way we expect or at least how we would like
> them to be, the reality is that when we see how other distros works, when
> we have to deal with other distros because work, support to friends, our
> LUGs or anything else, we don't like them: while there may be some puntual
> things that may appeal to us the overall system _don't_! So Arch Linux's
> the way, what else? (At least this is how I feel regarding the rest of
> GNU/Linux distros since I first meet Arch a few years ago.)
>
> As a result of above I forsee more flaming in the future whenever a
> critical update or shift (like systemd is) come, that's shitty but's a
> natural reaction and thus we need to remain patient to passionate arguments
> and stubborn people - which in no way means to sacrifice our opinions.
> Regarding the flow of new users it's likely they *must* learn our house
> rules rather to we accomodate to them. I consider the forums, the wiki,
> this list and Arch Linux in general as my house in what F/LOSS regards and
> I don't like to see it vandalized - and wont allow that.
> A bit of trolling is funny as well too much politeness is insufferable and
> I can accomodate a low-hit if a say or ask for something stupid -and I will
> be the first to make laugh of myself for that- but newcomers should to be
> _clearly_ aware that we don't like nor support bad attitude and that we can
> hold their hands only to help them start: in this regard I can say Arch
> Linux is one of the most both friendly and connoisseur communities abroad
> GNU/Linux-land and I'm most grateful for it for help me start using this
> great distro when I first switched from *buntu-land.
>
> I'm but sure that now the systemd adoption is a fact we will have peaceful
> times ahead with the usual chit-chat and the new technologie seek-for-aid
> mails so I vote to give us -this list- some time before commit any change
> like splitting or anything else.
> Also I would like to encourage any dev, TU or skillful users that might
> have unsubscribed in the recent time to subscribe again an help push
> arch-general to it's greatest potential.
>
> Greetings!
>

Re: [arch-general] / mounted ro after update

[nailz]

I did an install yesterday and i too had / mounted as read only (syslinux)
I triple boot and Arch is on HDD3 so i use Sabayons grub to boot into arch
, after messin with the fstab it was all good , is this another new
"feature of Arch" ? seems there's more spanners flying than at a
scaffolders convention of late , still i enjoy the challenge .

On 20 September 2012 09:02, Jude DaShiell  wrote:

> I neglected to mention when I did a genfstab I used genfstab -p -L /mnt
> > /mnt/etc/fstab in all installation attempts.  One thing not explained
> on the beginners guide is what does labels buy you as opposed to what
> does uid's buy you with genfstab.  Also, I did learn syslinux does not
> support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs.
>  Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did
> lilo.  I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and
> sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen
> produces.
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, David C. Rankin wrote:
>
> > On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Jude DaShiell  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so
> > > > >it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too.  I'm not going to
> > > > >dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but
> > > > >when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio
> or
> > > > >perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault.  However if in
> > > > >this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both
> > > > >of them are cleared.  It seems when util-linux finishes running
> after
> > > > >install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and
> > > > >lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is
> > > > >what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the
> > > > >installation guide on the archlinux wiki.
> > > HU you got me wondering now that could well be  both partitions
> > > that have the problem are ext4  why i did not change them to my more
> > > normal XFS i dont know ..
> > >
> > > I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my
> > > normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been
> > > let down there ..
> > >
> > > Pete .
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Pete,
> >
> >   I have run Arch on several filesystems and I've been lucky I guess.
> > Currently on this box, I have ext3, ext4 and reiser (old SuSE 10.0
> partition).
> > This box has been running since mid-2009 and updates are usually weekly
> > (sometimes I go a couple of weeks if I can't risk a break due to
> workload) I
> > have not had any of the mount ro weirdness even after several
> multi-gigabyte
> > updates. The current partitions I have are:
> >
> > /dev/sdc5 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
> > /dev/sdc7 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
> > /dev/sda2 on /mnt/pv type reiserfs (rw,relatime)
> > /dev/sdb2 on /mnt/win type fuseblk
> >
> (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096)
> >
> >   I don't know what is doing it in your case, but it seems like we
> should be
> > able to figure out where mount ro/rw logic for the resides (I picture
> > something like the following buried somewhere):
> >
> >   if [conditional]; then
> > mount -o rw [whatever]
> >   else
> > mount -o ro [whatever]
> >   fi
> >
> >   I suspect this may be complicated by the fact that mounting (or
> remounting)
> > takes place in several different places/processes during the boot.
> Anybody
> > familiar with this off-hand or any idea where Pete might look to rule-in
> or
> > rule-out the different parts of boot that could effect this? Sorry I
> don't
> > have more, I just haven't had the need to dissect the boot mount process
> to
> > that level before...
> >
> >   I guess you are just lucky :)
> >
> >
>
> ---
> jude 
> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
>
>
>


-- 


  www.cirrusminor.info