Re: [arch-general] installation failure

2012-06-19 Thread D. R. Evans
Daniel Wallace said the following at 06/18/2012 02:39 PM : > Say no to upgrading pacman first. also, SyncFirst is being removed > whenever the next pacman comes out Thank you. That worked. Perhaps something should be said about this in the wiki entry? It seems to me that anyone installing on to R

Re: [arch-general] installation failure

2012-06-18 Thread Daniel Wallace
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:34:20PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote: > I am getting a failure when attempting to install 64-bit arch as the main OS > on my principal desktop system. > > I am following the instructions at > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Software_RAID_and_LVM, since I have two > bra

Re: [arch-general] installation failure

2012-06-18 Thread Daniel Wallace
Say no to upgrading pacman first. also, SyncFirst is being removed whenever the next pacman comes out https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2012-February/015123.html On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:34:20PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote: > I am getting a failure when attempting to install 64-bi

Re: [arch-general] installation failure

2012-06-18 Thread Scott Lawrence
Can you give the precise error message? Some of the packages (e.g.) filesystem need to be installed with --force, because they overwrite files that were previously automatically generated etc. See the news on the main website for more details. On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, D. R. Evans wrote: I am get

[arch-general] installation failure

2012-06-18 Thread D. R. Evans
I am getting a failure when attempting to install 64-bit arch as the main OS on my principal desktop system. I am following the instructions at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Software_RAID_and_LVM, since I have two brand-new 2TB drives that I want to use in RAID1. 1. I have downloaded and b