Hello all. This is a question for those familiar with the rolling release system and Arch in particular. I am currently going through a reinstall of Arch and I have two iso's.
One of them is from 2011, and one of them is from 2012. So I was wondering... If I were to use the old iso and just run pacman -Syu like everyone does and upgrade the entire system, would it be essentially the same as installing the new iso?
In other words, is there a point to installing the newest iso or would I be fine just installing the old one and updating the system? Or is it absolutely neccesary to use the newest iso even though Arch uses the rolling release system and I can simply do a full system upgrade with pacman?
There are install scripts to help make install easier https://github.com/falconindy/arch-install-scripts.
If you used the old snapshot I would think it would work as long as you preformed the manual interventions from throughout the year.
Using g-parted to create and format your partitions would also make the install easier. then just skip ahead to mounting partitions and installing the base.
I think if you used the beginners guide and skipped the partitions part you could install it easily.
I know how to install arch, I've done it before. I just want to know if it would be fine to use an old iso and update it instead of using the newest iso.
I thought you didn't like loosing the AIF. But you wold have to consider all the manual interventions we had to make thought the year. Theirs a good chance you could wind up with a broken system after updating. I think using the new ISO would be much easier.
Eh I suppose you are right. I'm obviously a noob. Some of the configuration files are different. Such as the /etc/rc.conf. I guess I'll just have to get used to the new version.
You should be able to use either iso to install from. Once you have done a pacman -Syu and solved any issues, updated config files - dealing with .pacnew / .pacsave files you will have an up to date system.
If you have the latest iso it will mean you have fewer updates and config changes to make to the system and should have an installation method which matches the current wiki pages, so if you are doing a fresh install then it's easier to use the latest iso.
I installed Arch in January 2009 and have used pacman to keep the system up to date since, I still have all the latest packages available. My system config files will have been setup based on the thinking at the time so /etc/rc.conf still contains information on hostname, network setup etc but that's up to me to migrate to latest method when I chose to. I think I installed the system using a 2008.03 iso but I have downloaded a couple of iso images since in case I need to use them for system recovery - things like grub2 and ext4 won't have been supported by the original iso.
If I had to do a fresh Arch install today I would download the latest stable iso and use that following the installation guide on the wiki pages ... but the only reasons I would have for doing that would be:-
- hard disc failure
- replacement computer
- if I suspect rootkit/virus issue on the system
- I manage to break my current install and can't fix it booting from a live CD
- I get bored and decide to do a fresh install :lol:
Save yourself some time and effort and go with the latest iso. There has been a few fundamental changes to Arch between the 2011 and now, mainly:
- Grub legacy support dropped in favor of grub2
- Pacman now needs package verification via gpg keys
- Systemd-tools replaces udev
- the folders /var/run and /var/lock has been replaced by symlinks to /run and /run/lock
Thats all I can think of for now :D
Go with the installation guide and then follow the beginners guide and you should have no trouble :D