Salix Xfce 14.0beta1

[gapan]

1) QT VL2 test Utility in Multimedia appears to do nothing.

The menu entry has been removed with a package upgrade.

2) gpa in Accesories fails with "Calling the crypto engine program failed" error

Strange. I'll try to find out what causes this. If anyone can help, you're welcome to do it.

1) I installed using the auto-partition option. On 1337, iirc, this meant (on my system, I really don't know if the partition sizes were hard coded or calculated from a percentage of available hdd space) that / was ~6gb (of which ~2gb was free after installing the os and what apps I installed). On 14b1, however, the auto-partition gave / ~14gb, of which ~11 gb was free. This is quite a difference. Does SalixoOS <really> need that big a root partition now?

Auto-Partition allocation has changed with 14.0, giving more space in the / partition if you have a big enough hard drive. Some people might need that space if they install a lot of software.

2) VLC, unetbootin and gparted were missing from the repo(s). Is this just a matter of "they'll be there for the release", or have they been depreciated from SalixOS 14?

Maybe they'll be there for the release. If someone builds the packages.

I arrived to the question about selecting the "/" partition. I pressed [space] (although in this step there was no specific indication about [space] and [return] keys) and then [return] to continue. I was expecting the next step to be related to format the partitions, but the setup went back to the beginning.

Pressing space moved the selection from "Select" to "Continue". You are right in the sense that the "Continue" label is not exactly descriptive of what happens. I've changed it to "Cancel" in git.

What's with this /run directory? I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but it makes Gmountman a lot less pretty to look at.

I don't like it either, but udisks2 uses it to mount everything in there. I had actually created a patched udisks2 package that puts everything back in /media, but I'm not going to replace the slackware package for this. You can find my packages (and the patch) here: http://pnboy.pinguix.com/gapan/salix/udisks2/

LiloSetup says "NAME=SLACKWARE".

Where exactly does it say that? I can't see anything like it.

On an unrelated matter... in "salix-xfce-14.0beta1.iso -> salix/settings/" there are files for "13.2" and "13.37" in addition to "14.0". Is this intentional?

These are not files for "13.2" (which never existed) or "13.37". These are packages that have been built in the past and there is no need to rebuild them. So they are just fine as they are.

just finished installing the 32bit version and have a couple minor things that popped up. one is if compositing is enabled transparency seems to get "stuck" on for various windows. two, I tried installing the equinox and murrine theme engines from sourcery but they both fail to build.

Don't consider the slackbuilds 14.0 repository ready yet. In fact, it is still actually pointing to the 13.37 repository. So, it no surprise those two (and probably many others) don't work in sourcery.

I don't know why Slackware keeps PAE set on for the SMP kernel, but I'd certainly like to see an option for an SMP kernel without PAE in Salix.

Not our call. Talk to Patrick Volkerding.

Because i'm impatient and not very clever is it safe enough to install this beta and then keep upgrading until it becomes stable? If so do I also need to change the repos or are they changed as part of the upgrade process? My apologies for the dumb questions.

Yes, it's safe enough. There's probably going to be only one very minor thing that won't be fixed by package upgrades: the default theme is Clearlooks, but it's going to be Clearlooks-Phenix in the final release.

[loukingjr]

just finished installing the 32bit version and have a couple minor things that popped up. one is if compositing is enabled transparency seems to get "stuck" on for various windows. two, I tried installing the equinox and murrine theme engines from sourcery but they both fail to build.

Don't consider the slackbuilds 14.0 repository ready yet. In fact, it is still actually pointing to the 13.37 repository. So, it no surprise those two (and probably many others) don't work in sourcery.

ahhh. thank you is that why xfwm4 compositing may not be working correctly?

[gapan]

ahhh. thank you is that why xfwm4 compositing may not be working correctly?

No. It should be working OK. It might be something with your graphics card drivers?

[loukingjr]

ahhh. thank you is that why xfwm4 compositing may not be working correctly?

No. It should be working OK. It might be something with your graphics card drivers?

well I don't think so. I actually installed it in VitualBox to try it. I have 13.37 installed as a guest as well and it's working fine. I do have several other distros with xfce 4.10 and they all seem to be okay as well except, for some reason Firefox will also get "stuck" in one of the distros although I forget which one at the moment.

[gapan]

well I don't think so. I actually installed it in VitualBox to try it. I have 13.37 installed as a guest as well and it's working fine. I do have several other distros with xfce 4.10 and they all seem to be okay as well except, for some reason Firefox will also get "stuck" in one of the distros although I forget which one at the moment.

I don't know, maybe installing the guest additions will help?

[loukingjr]

well I don't think so. I actually installed it in VitualBox to try it. I have 13.37 installed as a guest as well and it's working fine. I do have several other distros with xfce 4.10 and they all seem to be okay as well except, for some reason Firefox will also get "stuck" in one of the distros although I forget which one at the moment.

I don't know, maybe installing the guest additions will help?

guest additions are installed. I'm not sure either unless something went awry when building them. they seem to install and be working. I had no error messages. would the kernel-source package in the repos be correct for the beta?

[loukingjr]

hmmm, well I had restarted several times but it seems shutting down then starting the guest has fixed the problem for now.

edit: I spoke too soon. I don't even have inactive windows transparency set but unlike the other distro I mentioned thunar is the one that gets "stuck" and not Firefox. very mysterious

[loukingjr]

I can't get Parole to work. I'm getting an error....GStreamer backend error Configured videosink video is not working. I had run the "Install multimedia codecs" from the menu.

edit: I had to run "parole --xv false" and it's working now.

[Adys]

Pressing space moved the selection from "Select" to "Continue". You are right in the sense that the "Continue" label is not exactly descriptive of what happens. I've changed it to "Cancel" in git.

OK, the "Cancel" explains the loop. Now, how the mounting points step of the installation should work if the user wants to have separated partitions for "/" and for "/home" (or for whatever else)? (Note: Until now I have only tested this beta1 with only one partition.) It seems that currently the only option would be to move to the relevant row and press [ENTER] so to set "/" only, and that there is no additional option for any other potential mounting points ("/home" as example) during the installation. Am I understanding it correctly?

LiloSetup says "NAME=SLACKWARE".

Where exactly does it say that? I can't see anything like it.

It is under the 3rd column, (IIRC, "Operative System") of the GUI of LiloSetup v.0.3.1. The row that corresponds to the recent installation of Salix 14.0 says "NAME=SLACKWARE". I guess mimosa saw it in the same place.

I don't know why Slackware keeps PAE set on for the SMP kernel, but I'd certainly like to see an option for an SMP kernel without PAE in Salix.

Not our call. Talk to Patrick Volkerding.

Well, it is your call to keep the exact kernel (with the exact config) of Slackware . If I knew how to customize it, I'd do it (unfortunately, I lack the knowledge).

I understand your decision to keep Pat's kernels. I still think that the SMP info is mentioned several times, but there is no mention about PAE. So a user with, say, some Celeron, would think that the SMP kernel should had worked. Adding some comment (at least in the wiki, and probably in the ISO image too) about the PAE requirement together with every mention of SMP (already in place) would be of some help. I'm not fighting about it; I'm just suggesting adding more hardware info, including the PAE requirement for SMP kernels in Salix.

[mimosa]

I'm having trouble with lilosetup. Here I'm running it from the beta in sda1. Notice the paths for sda5, and indeed sda1:

Code: Select all

# Linux bootable partition config begins
image = /boot/vmlinuz-huge-2.6.37.6
root = /dev/disk/by-uuid/7486e789-c9e6-4672-8f12-6b8870e70593
label = Ratpoison
read-only
# Linux bootable partition config ends
#
# Linux bootable partition config begins
image = /tmp/lilosetup/mnt/sda1/boot/vmlinuz-huge-smp-3.2.29-smp
root = /dev/disk/by-uuid/1e251a28-2958-4ade-b567-53647cec33fe
label = beta32
read-only
# Linux bootable partition config ends
#
# Linux bootable partition config begins
image = /tmp/lilosetup/mnt/sda6/boot/vmlinuz-huge-3.2.28
root = /dev/disk/by-uuid/c377f878-01ed-4827-be68-be0cddb76d43
label = current64
read-only
# Linux bootable partition config ends

If I edit the path to /tmp/lilosetup/mnt/sda5/boot, lilosetup fails. If I install lilo with that config, the Salix on sda5 boots, but nothing works.

That should probably be the smp kernel - I had both, but put one elsewhere so there would only be one, in case the choice was throwing lilosetup. This is apparently a single-core 64 bit CPU, but if the installer says it should have the smp kernel, so be it. It works.

Lilo as installed by the beta32 install CD booted Ratpoison on sda5 ok, but I did something to the beta and it wouldn't boot any more; so I ran lilosetup from 64-bit current on sda6. Then this trouble, and now I am trying it from beta 32 on sda1 - which boots fine.

Looking at the file, I see I have lilosetup 0.3.

EDIT

Two corrections: lilo *did* install successfully that time; and more importantly, the booting trouble was fixed by creating some space on the partition, which was full, and that prevented the fbdev module from being loaded (as far as I can tell).

Those paths still don't look right though ... I suspect I've got some information mixed up in the above, so I'm afraid it's probably not very useful. In a situation like this one tries a number of things in short order and it's easy to lose track.