[Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos

Live ISO images
32-bit (i686):
(size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download

64-bit (x86_64):
(size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download

iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
This need test from users having uefi system.


SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.

Thanks for testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

George Vlahavas
I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.

In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
standard installation as much as possible.

I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the live
iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as well, but
that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live differs from
standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we should have that in a
Salix installation, then we should also have them in a standard
installation, not only live. This is a decision for Salix in general, not
specific to live and it should be made before the next salix release (14.2
or whatever).

*If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first (in
our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a decision to
make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision that has to be
made separately for live. And as far as I remember, there was already a
discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing 14.1 and we ended up
deciding that we should stick to the same ones as slackware. Once again,
this is a discussion for the next release.

Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup of
different software. Should it be?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

>
> Live ISO images
> 32-bit (i686):
> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>
> 64-bit (x86_64):
> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>
> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
> This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
> I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
> This need test from users having uefi system.
>
>
> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
>
> Thanks for testing
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Tim Beech
But it's ok for Live to use Grub to boot itself, right? I thought that
was the latest change ...

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, George Vlahavas wrote:

> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
>
> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
> installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.
>
> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
> install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
> does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
> standard installation as much as possible.
>
> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the live
> iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as well, but
> that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live differs from
> standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we should have that in a
> Salix installation, then we should also have them in a standard
> installation, not only live. This is a decision for Salix in general, not
> specific to live and it should be made before the next salix release (14.2
> or whatever).
>
> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first (in
> our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a decision to
> make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision that has to be
> made separately for live. And as far as I remember, there was already a
> discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing 14.1 and we ended up
> deciding that we should stick to the same ones as slackware. Once again,
> this is a discussion for the next release.
>
> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup of
> different software. Should it be?
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>
>>
>> Live ISO images
>> 32-bit (i686):
>> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>
>> 64-bit (x86_64):
>> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>
>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
>> This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
>> I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
>> This need test from users having uefi system.
>>
>>
>> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
>>
>> Thanks for testing
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Salix-main mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos
In reply to this post by George Vlahavas
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
>
> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
> installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.
>
we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live isos. But
it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus since they has been
tested. In this case menus will have limited choises up to 15 and user
has to type to boot e.g. with persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are
ungly.

> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
> install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
> does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
> standard installation as much as possible.
>
> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the
> live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as
> well, but that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live
> differs from standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we
> should have that in a Salix installation, then we should also have
> them in a standard installation, not only live. This is a decision
> for Salix in general, not specific to live and it should be made
> before the next salix release (14.2 or whatever).
>
i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
they can be removed why not.  

> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first
> (in our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a
> decision to make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision
> that has to be made separately for live. And as far as I remember,
> there was already a discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing
> 14.1 and we ended up deciding that we should stick to the same ones
> as slackware. Once again, this is a discussion for the next release.
>
> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup
> of different software. Should it be?
>
the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the same,
lists are the same except live list need for live.

Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash flash-plugin
latest versions are included in iso images.

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>
> >
> > Live ISO images
> > 32-bit (i686):
> > (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
> >
> > 64-bit (x86_64):
> > (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
> >
> > iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
> > This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
> > I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
> > This need test from users having uefi system.
> >
> >
> > SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
> >
> > Thanks for testing
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Salix-main mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Tim Beech
As I understand it there is no reason Live shouldn't boot with Grub or
in any other way that works. The point is that the Salix installed by
Live (with SLI) should be identical to the original Salix 14.1 release.
So *that* can't boot with Grub. But Live itself can; and it seems that
is a better option because it is more flexible and looks better.

I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
> George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
>>
>> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
>> installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.
>>
> we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live isos. But
> it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus since they has been
> tested. In this case menus will have limited choises up to 15 and user
> has to type to boot e.g. with persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are
> ungly.
>
>> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
>> install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
>> does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
>> standard installation as much as possible.
>>
>> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the
>> live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as
>> well, but that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live
>> differs from standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we
>> should have that in a Salix installation, then we should also have
>> them in a standard installation, not only live. This is a decision
>> for Salix in general, not specific to live and it should be made
>> before the next salix release (14.2 or whatever).
>>
> i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
> they can be removed why not.
>> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first
>> (in our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a
>> decision to make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision
>> that has to be made separately for live. And as far as I remember,
>> there was already a discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing
>> 14.1 and we ended up deciding that we should stick to the same ones
>> as slackware. Once again, this is a discussion for the next release.
>>
>> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup
>> of different software. Should it be?
>>
> the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the same,
> lists are the same except live list need for live.
>
> Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash flash-plugin
> latest versions are included in iso images.
>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Live ISO images
>>> 32-bit (i686):
>>> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>>
>>> 64-bit (x86_64):
>>> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>>
>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
>>> This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
>>> I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
>>> This need test from users having uefi system.
>>>
>>>
>>> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Salix-main mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Salix-main mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Richard Lapointe
Please allow me to add to this discussion.   I believe that no matter how a hard drive installation of Salix is done (either from Live or installed media) the user should expect the same experience, from booting through the various applications that are installed.  With regards to booting Live media, I don't think that the boot method matters as the mere fact that the act of booting is different from that of a hard drive.  In case of Live media, one needs to insert or plugin the media, then select the appropriate media to boot, whereas the hard drive boot just requires the power up of the system.

As for grub or elilo as the choice to UEFI boot the Live media, from my experience, grub is not necessary better option.  I have tried both Fedora and Mint Live media, both using grub.  They both use a plain text menu with no color of graphics.  The elilo menu screen that I posted in the forum although not great, is actually better looking than the grub menus.

Anyway it all maybe a moot point since I could not get the beta3 to UEFI boot at all.  I first installed Live using the install_on_usb-grub.sh script.  This resulted in two boot option showing up in the UEFI menu, with neither able to boot.  In both cases, my system booted to the default boot option which is my hard drive Salix installation.  I then tried dd'ing the image to the USB stick,  This resulted in a single boot option in the UEFI menu.  Selecting this option resulted into booting into a grub prompt without any indication on how to boot any OS.

Here's what the usb stick partitioning look for the two methods that I used to install on the usb stick.

Using install_on_usb-grub

Two UEFI boot menu opts, neither booted.

Model: ADATA USB Flash Drive (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 4058MB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: gpt
Disk Flags: pmbr_boot

Number  Start   End     Size    File system  Name                  Flags
128     17.4kB  1049kB  1031kB               BIOS boot partition   bios_grub
 1      1049kB  34.6MB  33.6MB  fat16        EFI System            boot
 2      34.6MB  4058MB  4023MB  fat32        Microsoft basic data

dd'ing image to the usb stick

one UEFI boot menu options, boots to grub prompt.

Disk /dev/sdb: 4057 MB, 4057989120 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 493 cylinders, total 7925760 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x726679b6

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1   *           0     1595391      797696    0  Empty
/dev/sdb2             136        2183        1024   ef  EFI (FAT-12/16/32)
rich[~]$


Regards

Rich Lapointe (laprjns)


On 10/23/2014 07:02 PM, tim.beech wrote:
As I understand it there is no reason Live shouldn't boot with Grub or
in any other way that works. The point is that the Salix installed by
Live (with SLI) should be identical to the original Salix 14.1 release.
So *that* can't boot with Grub. But Live itself can; and it seems that
is a better option because it is more flexible and looks better.

I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
George Vlahavas [hidden email] wrote:

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.

we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live isos. But
it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus since they has been
tested. In this case menus will have limited choises up to 15 and user
has to type to boot e.g. with persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are
ungly.

In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
standard installation as much as possible.

I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the
live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as
well, but that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live
differs from standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we
should have that in a Salix installation, then we should also have
them in a standard installation, not only live. This is a decision
for Salix in general, not specific to live and it should be made
before the next salix release (14.2 or whatever).

i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
they can be removed why not.
*If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first
(in our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a
decision to make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision
that has to be made separately for live. And as far as I remember,
there was already a discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing
14.1 and we ended up deciding that we should stick to the same ones
as slackware. Once again, this is a discussion for the next release.

Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup
of different software. Should it be?

the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the same,
lists are the same except live list need for live.

Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash flash-plugin
latest versions are included in iso images.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

Live ISO images
32-bit (i686):
(size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download

64-bit (x86_64):
(size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download

iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
This need test from users having uefi system.


SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.

Thanks for testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

George Vlahavas
In reply to this post by Tim Beech

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, tim.beech wrote:

> But it's ok for Live to use Grub to boot itself, right? I thought that
> was the latest change ...

Did I misunderstand something? Doesn't the following comment by djemos
mean that grub is used for the installed system?

>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.

Live can boot itself using grub, no problem there. But the installed
system should be identical to a standard installation as much as possible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:48:59 +0300 (EEST)
George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:

I removed the grub isos from sourceforge and the post message on forum.
I have been prepared a elilo 64 bit iso and i will do the same for
32bit.
I will upload them as beta3


>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, tim.beech wrote:
>
> > But it's ok for Live to use Grub to boot itself, right? I thought
> > that was the latest change ...
>
> Did I misunderstand something? Doesn't the following comment by
> djemos mean that grub is used for the installed system?
>
> >>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
>
> Live can boot itself using grub, no problem there. But the installed
> system should be identical to a standard installation as much as
> possible.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Didier Spaier-2
In reply to this post by Richard Lapointe
On 24/10/2014 04:58, Richard Lapointe wrote:
 > Please allow me to add to this discussion.   I believe that no matter
how a hard drive installation of Salix is done (either from Live or
installed media) the user should expect the same experience, from
booting through the various applications that are installed. With
regards to booting Live media, I don't think that the boot method
matters as the mere fact that the act of booting is different from that
of a hard drive.  In case of Live media, one needs to insert or plugin
the media, then select the appropriate media to boot, whereas the hard
drive boot just requires the power up of the system.
 >
 > As for grub or elilo as the choice to UEFI boot the Live media, from
my experience, grub is not necessary better option.  I have tried both
Fedora and Mint Live media, both using grub.  They both use a plain text
menu with no color of graphics.  The elilo menu screen that I posted in
the forum although not great, is actually better looking than the grub
menus.
 >
 > Anyway it all maybe a moot point since I could not get the beta3 to
UEFI boot at all.  I first installed Live using the
install_on_usb-grub.sh script.  This resulted in two boot option showing
up in the UEFI menu, with neither able to boot.  In both cases, my
system booted to the default boot option which is my hard drive Salix
installation.  I then tried dd'ing the image to the USB stick,  This
resulted in a single boot option in the UEFI menu. Selecting this option
resulted into booting into a grub prompt without any indication on how
to boot any OS.
 >
 > Here's what the usb stick partitioning look for the two methods that
I used to install on the usb stick.
 >
 > Using install_on_usb-grub
 >
 > Two UEFI boot menu opts, neither booted.
 >
 > Model: ADATA USB Flash Drive (scsi)
 > Disk /dev/sdb: 4058MB
 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
 > Partition Table: gpt
 > Disk Flags: pmbr_boot
 >
 > Number  Start   End     Size    File system Name                  Flags
 > 128     17.4kB  1049kB  1031kB               BIOS boot partition  
bios_grub
 >  1      1049kB  34.6MB  33.6MB  fat16        EFI System            boot
 >  2      34.6MB  4058MB  4023MB  fat32        Microsoft basic data
 >
 > dd'ing image to the usb stick
 >
 > one UEFI boot menu options, boots to grub prompt.
 >
 > Disk /dev/sdb: 4057 MB, 4057989120 bytes
 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 493 cylinders, total 7925760 sectors
 > Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
 > Disk identifier: 0x726679b6
 >
 >    Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
 > /dev/sdb1   *           0     1595391      797696    0  Empty
 > /dev/sdb2             136        2183        1024   ef  EFI
(FAT-12/16/32)
 > rich[~]$
 >
 >
 > Regards
 >
 > Rich Lapointe (laprjns)
 >
 > On 10/23/2014 07:02 PM, tim.beech wrote:
 >> As I understand it there is no reason Live shouldn't boot with Grub or
 >> in any other way that works. The point is that the Salix installed by
 >> Live (with SLI) should be identical to the original Salix 14.1 release.
 >> So *that* can't boot with Grub. But Live itself can; and it seems that
 >> is a better option because it is more flexible and looks better.
 >>
 >> I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself.
 >>
 >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
 >>
 >>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
 >>> George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
 >>>>
 >>>> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
 >>>> installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.
 >>>>
 >>> we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live isos. But
 >>> it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus since they has been
 >>> tested. In this case menus will have limited choises up to 15 and user
 >>> has to type to boot e.g. with persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are
 >>> ungly.
 >>>
 >>>> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
 >>>> install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
 >>>> does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
 >>>> standard installation as much as possible.
 >>>>
 >>>> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the
 >>>> live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as
 >>>> well, but that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live
 >>>> differs from standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we
 >>>> should have that in a Salix installation, then we should also have
 >>>> them in a standard installation, not only live. This is a decision
 >>>> for Salix in general, not specific to live and it should be made
 >>>> before the next salix release (14.2 or whatever).
 >>>>
 >>> i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
 >>> they can be removed why not.
 >>>> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first
 >>>> (in our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a
 >>>> decision to make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision
 >>>> that has to be made separately for live. And as far as I remember,
 >>>> there was already a discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing
 >>>> 14.1 and we ended up deciding that we should stick to the same ones
 >>>> as slackware. Once again, this is a discussion for the next release.
 >>>>
 >>>> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup
 >>>> of different software. Should it be?
 >>>>
 >>> the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the same,
 >>> lists are the same except live list need for live.
 >>>
 >>> Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash flash-plugin
 >>> latest versions are included in iso images.
 >>>
 >>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>> Live ISO images
 >>>>> 32-bit (i686):
 >>>>> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
 >>>>>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
 >>>>>
 >>>>> 64-bit (x86_64):
 >>>>> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
 >>>>>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
 >>>>>
 >>>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
 >>>>> This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
 >>>>> I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
 >>>>> This need test from users having uefi system.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Thanks for testing

Please allow me to add some confusion to the discussion and sorry to be off
topic, this is actually a suggestion for Salix{,-live}-next.

Syslinux-6 can EFI boot and Syslinux-6.04 (release expected shortly) will
probably be stable enough to be used in Salix (maybe also in Slackware, but
of course that's up to Pat).

I suggest that some of you try to replace syslinux-4.07 with syslinux-6.03
(or wait for syslinux-6.04) and see if it can be used as drop-in replacement
for syslinux-4.07 + grub + elilo for both BIOS and UEFI firmwares.

Of course I can do that too, unfortunately I can only try on a vmplayer VM
with an UEFI firmware, as I don't own a real machine with that.

Didier

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Tim Beech
In reply to this post by Dimitris Tzemos
Perhaps this is what we should go for now, since booting with grub isn't
apparently working. But in the long term, I think it would be worth trying
to get it to work with grub, which can be made much more attractive for
the user. It may not be at the moment (even if it worked) but my
understanding is Grub is much more flexible than elilo. Maybe it isn't,
with UEFI? Even if not, I bet they are working on improving it. Soon, everyone
will have UEFI.

Whatever is done in that regard, clearly, any Live installer should
install a Salix version essentially identical to that provided by the
standard install disk. The question is completely unrelated to how Live
itself boots. Isn't it?

Rich, thanks for your clear and carefully reasoned post!

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:48:59 +0300 (EEST)
> George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I removed the grub isos from sourceforge and the post message on forum.
> I have been prepared a elilo 64 bit iso and i will do the same for
> 32bit.
> I will upload them as beta3
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, tim.beech wrote:
>>
>>> But it's ok for Live to use Grub to boot itself, right? I thought
>>> that was the latest change ...
>>
>> Did I misunderstand something? Doesn't the following comment by
>> djemos mean that grub is used for the installed system?
>>
>>>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
>>
>> Live can boot itself using grub, no problem there. But the installed
>> system should be identical to a standard installation as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Salix-main mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Didier Spaier
In reply to this post by Richard Lapointe
On 24/10/2014 04:58, Richard Lapointe wrote:
> Please allow me to add to this discussion.   I believe that no matter how a hard drive installation of Salix is done (either from Live or installed media) the user should expect the same experience, from booting through the various applications that are installed. With regards to booting Live media, I don't think that the boot method matters as the mere fact that the act of booting is different from that of a hard drive.  In case of Live media, one needs to insert or plugin the media, then select the appropriate media to boot, whereas the hard drive boot just requires the power up of the system.
>
> As for grub or elilo as the choice to UEFI boot the Live media, from my experience, grub is not necessary better option.  I have tried both Fedora and Mint Live media, both using grub.  They both use a plain text menu with no color of graphics.  The elilo menu screen that I posted in the forum although not great, is actually better looking than the grub menus.
>
> Anyway it all maybe a moot point since I could not get the beta3 to UEFI boot at all.  I first installed Live using the install_on_usb-grub.sh script.  This resulted in two boot option showing up in the UEFI menu, with neither able to boot.  In both cases, my system booted to the default boot option which is my hard drive Salix installation.  I then tried dd'ing the image to the USB stick,  This resulted in a single boot option in the UEFI menu. Selecting this option resulted into booting into a grub prompt without any indication on how to boot any OS.
>
> Here's what the usb stick partitioning look for the two methods that I used to install on the usb stick.
>
> Using install_on_usb-grub
>
> Two UEFI boot menu opts, neither booted.
>
> Model: ADATA USB Flash Drive (scsi)
> Disk /dev/sdb: 4058MB
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> Partition Table: gpt
> Disk Flags: pmbr_boot
>
> Number  Start   End     Size    File system Name                  Flags
> 128     17.4kB  1049kB  1031kB               BIOS boot partition   bios_grub
>  1      1049kB  34.6MB  33.6MB  fat16        EFI System            boot
>  2      34.6MB  4058MB  4023MB  fat32        Microsoft basic data
>
> dd'ing image to the usb stick
>
> one UEFI boot menu options, boots to grub prompt.
>
> Disk /dev/sdb: 4057 MB, 4057989120 bytes
> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 493 cylinders, total 7925760 sectors
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> Disk identifier: 0x726679b6
>
>    Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
> /dev/sdb1   *           0     1595391      797696    0  Empty
> /dev/sdb2             136        2183        1024   ef  EFI (FAT-12/16/32)
> rich[~]$
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rich Lapointe (laprjns)
>
> On 10/23/2014 07:02 PM, tim.beech wrote:
>> As I understand it there is no reason Live shouldn't boot with Grub or
>> in any other way that works. The point is that the Salix installed by
>> Live (with SLI) should be identical to the original Salix 14.1 release.
>> So *that* can't boot with Grub. But Live itself can; and it seems that
>> is a better option because it is more flexible and looks better.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself.
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
>>> George Vlahavas [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
>>>> installation iso and then another when installed from a live iso.
>>>>
>>> we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live isos. But
>>> it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus since they has been
>>> tested. In this case menus will have limited choises up to 15 and user
>>> has to type to boot e.g. with persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are
>>> ungly.
>>>
>>>> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A if you
>>>> install from the standard iso and B if you install from live". Where
>>>> does it stop? An installation from live should be identical to a
>>>> standard installation as much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present in the
>>>> live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos (in 13.37) as
>>>> well, but that's no excuse really and these are also cases where live
>>>> differs from standard and it shouldn't. If people think that we
>>>> should have that in a Salix installation, then we should also have
>>>> them in a standard installation, not only live. This is a decision
>>>> for Salix in general, not specific to live and it should be made
>>>> before the next salix release (14.2 or whatever).
>>>>
>>> i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
>>> they can be removed why not.
>>>> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso first
>>>> (in our next release) and then live should just follow. This is a
>>>> decision to make for the distribution in general. It's not a decision
>>>> that has to be made separately for live. And as far as I remember,
>>>> there was already a discussion about lilo+elilo/grub before releasing
>>>> 14.1 and we ended up deciding that we should stick to the same ones
>>>> as slackware. Once again, this is a discussion for the next release.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random mashup
>>>> of different software. Should it be?
>>>>
>>> the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the same,
>>> lists are the same except live list need for live.
>>>
>>> Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash flash-plugin
>>> latest versions are included in iso images.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Live ISO images
>>>>> 32-bit (i686):
>>>>> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>>>>
>>>>> 64-bit (x86_64):
>>>>> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>>>>>
>>>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub installed.
>>>>> This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb, installation to hd)
>>>>> I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
>>>>> This need test from users having uefi system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for testing

Please allow me to add some confusion to the discussion and sorry to be off
topic, this is actually a suggestion for Salix{,-live}-next.

Syslinux-6 can EFI boot and Syslinux-6.04 (release expected shortly) will
probably be stable enough to be used in Salix (maybe also in Slackware, but
of course that's up to Pat).

I suggest that some of you try to replace syslinux-4.07 with syslinux-6.03
(or wait for syslinux-6.04) and see if it can be used as drop-in replacement
for syslinux-4.07 + grub + elilo for both BIOS and UEFI firmwares.

Of course I can do that too, unfortunately I can only try on a vmplayer VM
with an UEFI firmware, as I don't own a real machine with that.

Didier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos
In reply to this post by Tim Beech
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:33:36 -0300 (BRT)
"tim.beech" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this is because syslinux version 6.03 have uefi/efi
capabilities. I could not manage to compile syslinux 6.03 version
under slackware. Anyway since i do not have a uefi system i cannot see
what is missing grub cannot find to boot. Like pass boot to elilo.
But after release of beta3 if anyone wants we can test the grub isos to
make them boot for future releases.
arch and mint etc include syslinux 6.03 so maybe this s the reason.

> Perhaps this is what we should go for now, since booting with grub
> isn't apparently working. But in the long term, I think it would be
> worth trying to get it to work with grub, which can be made much more
> attractive for the user. It may not be at the moment (even if it
> worked) but my understanding is Grub is much more flexible than
> elilo. Maybe it isn't, with UEFI? Even if not, I bet they are working
> on improving it. Soon, everyone will have UEFI.
>
> Whatever is done in that regard, clearly, any Live installer should
> install a Salix version essentially identical to that provided by the
> standard install disk. The question is completely unrelated to how
> Live itself boots. Isn't it?
>
> Rich, thanks for your clear and carefully reasoned post!
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:48:59 +0300 (EEST)
> > George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I removed the grub isos from sourceforge and the post message on
> > forum. I have been prepared a elilo 64 bit iso and i will do the
> > same for 32bit.
> > I will upload them as beta3
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, tim.beech wrote:
> >>
> >>> But it's ok for Live to use Grub to boot itself, right? I thought
> >>> that was the latest change ...
> >>
> >> Did I misunderstand something? Doesn't the following comment by
> >> djemos mean that grub is used for the installed system?
> >>
> >>>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub
> >>>>> installed.
> >>
> >> Live can boot itself using grub, no problem there. But the
> >> installed system should be identical to a standard installation as
> >> much as possible.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Salix-main mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Salix-main mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos
In reply to this post by Didier Spaier-2
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:16:24 +0200
Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:

hi Didier.
Yes i think this is the problem. syslinux 6.03 needed.
I cannot compile it. If you can make a slackware slackbuild it will be
very useful to test grub for future releases.
Dimitris

> On 24/10/2014 04:58, Richard Lapointe wrote:
>  > Please allow me to add to this discussion.   I believe that no
>  > matter
> how a hard drive installation of Salix is done (either from Live or
> installed media) the user should expect the same experience, from
> booting through the various applications that are installed. With
> regards to booting Live media, I don't think that the boot method
> matters as the mere fact that the act of booting is different from
> that of a hard drive.  In case of Live media, one needs to insert or
> plugin the media, then select the appropriate media to boot, whereas
> the hard drive boot just requires the power up of the system.
>  >
>  > As for grub or elilo as the choice to UEFI boot the Live media,
>  > from
> my experience, grub is not necessary better option.  I have tried
> both Fedora and Mint Live media, both using grub.  They both use a
> plain text menu with no color of graphics.  The elilo menu screen
> that I posted in the forum although not great, is actually better
> looking than the grub menus.
>  >
>  > Anyway it all maybe a moot point since I could not get the beta3
>  > to
> UEFI boot at all.  I first installed Live using the
> install_on_usb-grub.sh script.  This resulted in two boot option
> showing up in the UEFI menu, with neither able to boot.  In both
> cases, my system booted to the default boot option which is my hard
> drive Salix installation.  I then tried dd'ing the image to the USB
> stick,  This resulted in a single boot option in the UEFI menu.
> Selecting this option resulted into booting into a grub prompt
> without any indication on how to boot any OS.
>  >
>  > Here's what the usb stick partitioning look for the two methods
>  > that
> I used to install on the usb stick.
>  >
>  > Using install_on_usb-grub
>  >
>  > Two UEFI boot menu opts, neither booted.
>  >
>  > Model: ADATA USB Flash Drive (scsi)
>  > Disk /dev/sdb: 4058MB
>  > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
>  > Partition Table: gpt
>  > Disk Flags: pmbr_boot
>  >
>  > Number  Start   End     Size    File system Name
>  > Flags 128     17.4kB  1049kB  1031kB               BIOS boot
>  > partition  
> bios_grub
>  >  1      1049kB  34.6MB  33.6MB  fat16        EFI System
>  > boot 2      34.6MB  4058MB  4023MB  fat32        Microsoft basic
>  > data
>  >
>  > dd'ing image to the usb stick
>  >
>  > one UEFI boot menu options, boots to grub prompt.
>  >
>  > Disk /dev/sdb: 4057 MB, 4057989120 bytes
>  > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 493 cylinders, total 7925760 sectors
>  > Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>  > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > Disk identifier: 0x726679b6
>  >
>  >    Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
>  > /dev/sdb1   *           0     1595391      797696    0  Empty
>  > /dev/sdb2             136        2183        1024   ef  EFI
> (FAT-12/16/32)
>  > rich[~]$
>  >
>  >
>  > Regards
>  >
>  > Rich Lapointe (laprjns)
>  >
>  > On 10/23/2014 07:02 PM, tim.beech wrote:
>  >> As I understand it there is no reason Live shouldn't boot with
>  >> Grub or in any other way that works. The point is that the Salix
>  >> installed by Live (with SLI) should be identical to the original
>  >> Salix 14.1 release. So *that* can't boot with Grub. But Live
>  >> itself can; and it seems that is a better option because it is
>  >> more flexible and looks better.
>  >>
>  >> I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself.
>  >>
>  >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
>  >>> George Vlahavas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>>> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> We cannot have one boot manager when installed from a standard
>  >>>> installation iso and then another when installed from a live
>  >>>> iso.
>  >>>>
>  >>> we could since elilo is limited. We used grub in the old live
>  >>> isos. But it is simple to prepare a live iso with elilo menus
>  >>> since they has been tested. In this case menus will have limited
>  >>> choises up to 15 and user has to type to boot e.g. with
>  >>> persistence or acpi=off. elilo menus are ungly.
>  >>>
>  >>>> In general, we don't want to get to have cases like "you get A
>  >>>> if you install from the standard iso and B if you install from
>  >>>> live". Where does it stop? An installation from live should be
>  >>>> identical to a standard installation as much as possible.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I'm already perplexed as to why avahi and remmina are present
>  >>>> in the live iso. I know it was like that in previous live isos
>  >>>> (in 13.37) as well, but that's no excuse really and these are
>  >>>> also cases where live differs from standard and it shouldn't.
>  >>>> If people think that we should have that in a Salix
>  >>>> installation, then we should also have them in a standard
>  >>>> installation, not only live. This is a decision for Salix in
>  >>>> general, not specific to live and it should be made before the
>  >>>> next salix release (14.2 or whatever).
>  >>>>
>  >>> i think remina is useful. avahi is mabe need i have to see it. If
>  >>> they can be removed why not.
>  >>>> *If* we move to grub, that has to be done for the standard iso
>  >>>> first (in our next release) and then live should just follow.
>  >>>> This is a decision to make for the distribution in general.
>  >>>> It's not a decision that has to be made separately for live.
>  >>>> And as far as I remember, there was already a discussion about
>  >>>> lilo+elilo/grub before releasing 14.1 and we ended up deciding
>  >>>> that we should stick to the same ones as slackware. Once again,
>  >>>> this is a discussion for the next release.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Otherwise, the feeling I'm getting is that Salix is a random
>  >>>> mashup of different software. Should it be?
>  >>>>
>  >>> the only difference is the boot loader everything else is the
>  >>> same, lists are the same except live list need for live.
>  >>>
>  >>> Again just tell me to prepare a live with elilo since bash
>  >>> flash-plugin latest versions are included in iso images.
>  >>>
>  >>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> Live ISO images
>  >>>>> 32-bit (i686):
>  >>>>> (size: 761 MB, md5sum: 62ae4691c92ec866c659331d63d729c7)
>  >>>>>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> 64-bit (x86_64):
>  >>>>> (size: 779 MB, md5sum: bca6490913f75ee86027878eec6cfb54)
>  >>>>>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/salix/files/14.1/salixlive64-xfce-14.1-beta3.iso/download
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> iso images boot on syslinux and after installation grub
>  >>>>> installed. This has been tested on 32 bit (boot from usb,
>  >>>>> installation to hd) I dont know on uefi boot if grub enabled.
>  >>>>> This need test from users having uefi system.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> SLI 1.2.1 has now a progress bar and install grub.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Thanks for testing
>
> Please allow me to add some confusion to the discussion and sorry to
> be off topic, this is actually a suggestion for Salix{,-live}-next.
>
> Syslinux-6 can EFI boot and Syslinux-6.04 (release expected shortly)
> will probably be stable enough to be used in Salix (maybe also in
> Slackware, but of course that's up to Pat).
>
> I suggest that some of you try to replace syslinux-4.07 with
> syslinux-6.03 (or wait for syslinux-6.04) and see if it can be used
> as drop-in replacement for syslinux-4.07 + grub + elilo for both BIOS
> and UEFI firmwares.
>
> Of course I can do that too, unfortunately I can only try on a
> vmplayer VM with an UEFI firmware, as I don't own a real machine with
> that.
>
> Didier
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Salix-main mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Didier Spaier

On 24/10/2014 12:50, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:16:24 +0200
> Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> hi Didier.
> Yes i think this is the problem. syslinux 6.03 needed.
> I cannot compile it. If you can make a slackware slackbuild it will be
> very useful to test grub for future releases.
> Dimitris
>
Yep Dimitris, I'll try to do that.

Oh, and sorry for the duplicate mail sent later.

Didier

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Dimitris Tzemos
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:33:08 +0200
Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 24/10/2014 12:50, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:16:24 +0200
> > Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > hi Didier.
> > Yes i think this is the problem. syslinux 6.03 needed.
> > I cannot compile it. If you can make a slackware slackbuild it will
> > be very useful to test grub for future releases.
> > Dimitris
> >
> Yep Dimitris, I'll try to do that.
>
> Oh, and sorry for the duplicate mail sent later.
>
> Didier

I have done a syslinux SLKBUILD but it fails with a message about asm.
The assembler which i think is because of glibc version used on
slackel. I think needs a newer version. This is just a guess.
So trying to build it you will see.
To see the message put   || return 1 after make
otherwise you will think it is compiled.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Salix-main] Salix Live Xfce 14.1 beta3

Didier Spaier

On 24/10/2014 13:48, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:33:08 +0200
> Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 24/10/2014 12:50, Dimitris Tzemos wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:16:24 +0200
>>> Didier Spaier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi Didier.
>>> Yes i think this is the problem. syslinux 6.03 needed.
>>> I cannot compile it. If you can make a slackware slackbuild it will
>>> be very useful to test grub for future releases.
>>> Dimitris
>>>
>> Yep Dimitris, I'll try to do that.
>>
>> Oh, and sorry for the duplicate mail sent later.
>>
>> Didier
> I have done a syslinux SLKBUILD but it fails with a message about asm.
> The assembler which i think is because of glibc version used on
> slackel. I think needs a newer version. This is just a guess.
> So trying to build it you will see.
> To see the message put   || return 1 after make
> otherwise you will think it is compiled.
>
Thanks for the info Dimitris.

I'll try against glibc-2.20 that just made its way in Slackware-current.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Salix-main mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/salix-main