> Archboot:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Archboot
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=143541
>
> It uses a working installer for quite everything.
> For complete systemd support next ISO would be better to use,
> I'm only waiting for core changes to calm down first.
> greetings
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Tobias Powalowski
wrote:
> Am Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:28:00 +0200
> schrieb fredbezies :
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
>> "user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
>> good old arch/setup ?
>
Am Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:28:00 +0200
schrieb fredbezies :
> Hello.
>
> I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
> "user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
> good old arch/setup ?
>
> I'm not afraid of these scripts, but it could drive away some us
[2012-07-16 14:13:39 +0200] Christoph Vigano:
> Speaking of which: how can one get involved into the development of AIF?
https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-releng
> Is there something like a bug list for it?
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=6
> Something different:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> Personally I think we would be better off with just these scripts
> + lots of documentation. If you are interested in an installer,
> then I guess the best solution is to get involved with the AIF and
> get it into shape again.
Speaking of which:
[2012-07-16 13:28:00 +0200] fredbezies:
> I'm not afraid of these scripts, but it could drive away some users
> which are not ready for a so "simplified" installation tool.
In view of the many issues and complaints related to the move from /lib
to /usr/lib, it seems pretty clear to me that most pe
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, fredbezies wrote:
> I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
> "user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
> good old arch/setup ?
Personally I think we would be better off with just these scripts +
lots of documenta
2012/7/16 fredbezies
> Hello.
>
> I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
> "user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
> good old arch/setup ?
>
> I'm not afraid of these scripts, but it could drive away some users
> which are not ready for a so "
fredbezies wrote:
Hello.
I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
"user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
good old arch/setup ?
I'm not afraid of these scripts, but it could drive away some users
which are not ready for a so "simplified" insta
Hello.
I've read the wiki page for arch-install-scripts. It is not very
"user-friendly". Any hope to see this "embedded" in a program, like
good old arch/setup ?
I'm not afraid of these scripts, but it could drive away some users
which are not ready for a so "simplified" installation tool.
--
F
On 05/06/10 19:40, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 18:54 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 05/06/10 08:20, Diogo Franco wrote:
On 05/ 6/10 06:08 AM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
User Repository (AUR), which contains over 9,000
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 18:54 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 05/06/10 08:20, Diogo Franco wrote:
> > On 05/ 6/10 06:08 AM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
> >> outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
> >> User Repository (AUR), which contains over 9,000 build scripts" It
> >> sh
On 05/06/10 08:20, Diogo Franco wrote:
On 05/ 6/10 06:08 AM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
User Repository (AUR), which contains over 9,000 build scripts" It
should say "over 21.000 build scripts".
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSND!
On 05/ 6/10 06:08 AM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
User Repository (AUR), which contains over 9,000 build scripts" It
should say "over 21.000 build scripts".
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSND!!
Due to the incredible power of 9000,
On Thu 06 May 2010 18:08 +0900, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
> I was reading the "about" page (http://www.archlinux.org/about/) in
> the archlinux website and I noticed that this line is a little
> outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
> User Repository (AUR), which con
On 06/05/10 19:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 06.05.2010 11:08, schrieb Juan Diego Tascón:
And one more question: is there a proposed starting date or a proposed
selection procedure or just additional information for the Junior
Developer scheme? I sent an email to Allan (@archlinux.org) the day it
Am 06.05.2010 11:08, schrieb Juan Diego Tascón:
> And one more question: is there a proposed starting date or a proposed
> selection procedure or just additional information for the Junior
> Developer scheme? I sent an email to Allan (@archlinux.org) the day it
> opened but I have not received any
Good day amigos,
I was reading the "about" page (http://www.archlinux.org/about/) in
the archlinux website and I noticed that this line is a little
outdated: "Arch also offers an [unsupported] section in the Arch Linux
User Repository (AUR), which contains over 9,000 build scripts" It
should say "
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes you are allowed to link dynamicly, now read if you are allowed to run the
> linked program. Not speaking of actually distributing it.
Strange, why would it be allowed to link and not to run the linked
program?
On Thursday 22 May 2008 00:13:27 Tobias Kieslich wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008, Denis Alessandro Altoe Falqueto wrote:
> > It seems that LZMA lib is licensed with LGPL and has an special
> > exception that permits to link (statically or dinamicaly) without
> > being bound by the LGPL terms.
>
> I th
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Denis Alessandro Altoe Falqueto wrote:
>
> It seems that LZMA lib is licensed with LGPL and has an special
> exception that permits to link (statically or dinamicaly) without
> being bound by the LGPL terms.
I thought LGPL permist statically linking anyways, which is why WXw
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The
> downside is that LZMA is not supported by libarchive, and won't be
> supported officially either, because libarchive is BSD licensed and LZMA
> is GPL licensed.
Hi,
It seems that LZMA lib is licensed with LGPL and ha
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 19:39 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> What's the memory usage when unzipping an LZMA file? Is it much higher
> than the needs of gzip? We already have problems supporting low-memory
> systems with our installer, adding a compression algorithm that eats
> more memory will cause
Aaron Griffin wrote:
That's actually not entirely true. Dan and I investigated this. The
previous low memory issues were caused by the entire install system
never leaving the initramfs, and remaining entirely in RAM - which
soaked far more than pacman ever will. Additionally, with the dynamic
pa
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:47 +0300, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:14 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
>> > Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
>> > with .bz2 files
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:47 +0300, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:14 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> > Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
> > with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
> > lot without giving th
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can't this problem be circumvented by spawning the lzma command line
> utility, and piping all data to it? I understand that this perhaps
> negates the purpose of libarchive, but the overhead should be small.
>
Tha
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:14 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
> with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
> lot without giving the same amount of size reduction back. We've done
> some recent tests with
Idézés Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:55 +0900, Bendany Qian wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
> >
> > Currently archlinux is using gzip compress method to pack the
> > package, I think it is better to use bzip2. since bzip2 f
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
> with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
> lot without giving the same amount of size reduction back. We've done
> some re
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:55 +0900, Bendany Qian wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
>
> Currently archlinux is using gzip compress method to pack the
> package, I think it is better to use bzip2. since bzip2 format
> can save about 10%-20% disk space than gzip.
>
Bendany Qian wrote:
I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
That is a very common suggestion. See
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/2264 for more information.
Allan
Hi all
I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
Currently archlinux is using gzip compress method to pack the
package, I think it is better to use bzip2. since bzip2 format
can save about 10%-20% disk space than gzip.
As I know, FreeBSD has already switch its package format from gzip
to
33 matches
Mail list logo
