Virtual machine, chroot or 32bit installation

[Tim CowChip]

I am looking for the best way (for me) to build 32bit Salix-current packages.
I have Salix64-XFCE-current and Bridge Linux (Arch with XFCE and some nice pacman config scripts.....hi toothandnail) on separate partitions. My choices as I see them are:

1. Use Shador's chroot method on my Salix64-current installation like this:

Code: Select all

i486/
    13.37/
    current/
x86_64/
    13.37/
    current/

2. Run 32bit and 64bit Salix with Qemu or open-vm-tools on my Arch partition.
3. Install 32bit Salix on a separate partition.

I am using the Arch installation for everyday use since it has openjdk, flashplugin and many of the packages not yet available in Salix-current repos. I just recently installed it (actually Bridge Linux) and could easliy install it again on a smaller slice, leaving room for 32bit Salix.

I have 0 experience with 1 and 2. I could do 3 standing on my head with my eyes closed.

I like the first 2 options because they will provide a "clean" build environment for both 32 and 64 bit arch's.

If I download and install a 32bit Salix edition with method 1 or 2, I will need to upgrade it to current. Will this be too much for a beginner to grasp?

[mimosa]

The same applies to method 3 - which i'd recommend. Full instructions are available on the wiki. Have you subscribed to the mailing list?

http://www.salixos.org/wiki/index.php/H ... 37_to_14.0

[Tim CowChip]

The same applies to method 3 - which i'd recommend. Full instructions are available on the wiki. Have you subscribed to the mailing list?

http://www.salixos.org/wiki/index.php/H ... 37_to_14.0

I have already upgraded Salix64-XFCE from 13.37 to current and I imagine a hard disk installation of 32bit Salix would be about the same.

I'm not sure how to install and then run a 32bit system on a 64bit machine using open-vm-tools or chroot, let alone upgrade it.

I agree method 3 would be the easiest for me. I'm on the [Salix-main] mailing list if that's the one you mean.

[mimosa]

Except, having slept on it, I wonder: can you install a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit machine just like that? I've never even seen a 64-bit machine, so have no experience to draw on.

However, it would be easy enough to find out, if you don't know either - just try booting 32-bit live.

[thenktor]

1. Use Shador's chroot method on my Salix64-current installation like this:
2. Run 32bit and 64bit Salix with Qemu or open-vm-tools on my Arch partition.
3. Install 32bit Salix on a separate partition.

For package building I suggest method 1 or 2. While method 1 is faster at package building method 2 is easier. Also don't use Qemu, better use Virtualbox.

Except, having slept on it, I wonder: can you install a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit machine just like that? I've never even seen a 64-bit machine, so have no experience to draw on.

Yes, that's no problem. We are talking about x86_64 here, which is compatible to i486 (=x86).

[mimosa]

VirtualBox is a bit of a pain to set up (search the forum) but quite easy to use.

@ Thenktor

But I *can't* install 64 bit on a 32 bit machine, right? Just as I can't even do it in a VM, because I don't have "hardware virtualisation".

[Tim CowChip]

For package building I suggest method 1 or 2. While method 1 is faster at package building method 2 is easier. Also don't use Qemu, better use Virtualbox.

I downloaded Salix Xfce Live 13.37 CD ISO. do I extract it to a chroot folder or someplace to run it in a virtual machine?

[laprjns]

VirtualBox is a bit of a pain to set up (search the forum) but quite easy to use.

Its actual rather easy to install the PUEL version. All that really needs to be done is to install the kernel-source package, download the correct installation script from here; https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads, chmod +X the script and then run it as root.

The primary reason people have problems is because they don't have the kernel-source package installed. There seems to be a problem with Slackware derived kernels (starting around kernel version 2.6.26) that the standard header package does not include the necessary kernel headers to build the VirtualBox modules (this is also true with the nVidia drivers). All the other problems seem to be due to user errors like downloading the wrong VB package. A forum search will gives a perception that there are a lot of problem, because nobody ever post that the install when great without any problems

[mimosa]

Yes but then there are the guest additions which make usage much smoother. Again it's nothing really complicated but quite easy to come unstuck if you've never done it before (or forgotten how). In certain respects, Virtualbox's interface is also difficult to get the hang of in my opinion, though easy to use once you have. The documentation is thorough but rather dry.

All trivial, surmountable things, and it's basically a great app for the job.

[Tim CowChip]

Decided to install both i486 and x86_64 aplha1s on separate partitions. This way I can test them while providing a build environment for both arches.

Unfortunately the installer ate the remaining partition with my Bridge installation and everything that I had saved to use again with salix like my new id_rsa for example. I'll back it up online next time I guess, though that doesn't seem to be a real secure method.

I'll be downloading and installing Bridge again and then replacing the 25 or so gigabytes of media files scattered around my daughter's son's and wife's computers (I hope).

I guess I have to re-download i486 alpha as well. On a positive note the usb stick I made with the x86_64 alpha was hybrid so I was able to dd it on to the memstick and the installer ran very smoothly.

I guess I'm sort of forking this thread, but if anyone else wants to try the alpha's, my opinion is that it is easier than ever to get them up and running.