Ask your questions here.
Post a reply
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## fsmithreds-refracta-directory...

Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:23 am

To make it short:

Code:
  `luzer$ ls
  display_savior.03 mkunlive.sh refractainstaller3b.sh repsit zinstaller.01 zinstaller-test4
  display_savior.04 README refractainstaller3.sh repsit3-z zinstaller.02 zinstaller-test5
  exclude.list refractainstaller2.sh refractainstaller.sh z5error_log.txt zinstaller.03 zinstaller-test8g`

I will soon make a new Vbox-installation.
Shall i take zinstaller8g?
or zinstaller.01
Mhh.. the higher the version number, the more actual it is, i got that right?
Would probably fit into development, but someone needs to make the first post here.
--------
EDIT: i think i figured it out.
zinstaller.02 or zinstaller.03, while 03-revision is borked in VBox... correct?
I picked 02.
yup: inside success sign seen: @ten@
fsmithred

- fsmithred
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:13 pm

## Re: fsmithreds-refracta-directory...

Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:57 am

Yes, in general, the higher numbered versions are better, but in the case of zinstaller, .03 doesn't work right in vbox. When it does work, it displays the partitions in order, while .02 displays them in some order defined by rules I have yet to understand. For example:

Code:
  `/dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb4 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sda3 /dev/sda2 /dev/sda1`

Back up your copy of that repo before the next pull. I'm going to delete some stuff before I post it in the devel. section.
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: fsmithreds-refracta-directory...

Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:32 pm

> fsmithred wrote:Yes, in general, the higher numbered versions are better, but in the case of zinstaller, .03 doesn't work right in vbox. When it does work, it displays the partitions in order, while .02 displays them in some order defined by rules I have yet to understand. For example:
> Code:
>   `/dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb4 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sda3 /dev/sda2 /dev/sda1`
> Back up your copy of that repo before the next pull. I'm going to delete some stuff before I post it in the devel. section.

just a little hint: with the speed you work you ~could~ have a look in git-branches.
It is not very difficult, au contraire. As i don't write tons of code for me it is kinda pointless, but it might help you.
With easy i mean: one can understand and learn it in less than 10 minutes.
-
Installation went through like a charme, like usual.
fsmithred

- fsmithred
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:13 pm

## Re: fsmithreds-refracta-directory...

Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:58 pm

I just installed on real hardware from a usb stick. It worked. I used the newest installer, which also includes code from the mkunlive script to change user name and some other stuff. Did it with one of my debian live builds, but the main thing I needed to test was that it installed to the correct hard drive. It did. I had two IDE drives connected, and the usb drive was /dev/sdc (and stayed that way, thanks.)
The order that the partitions get displayed is still weird, and it wasn't the same after I repartitioned the drive. You might say that I should expect that, but here's the way it went. First time through, everything was in reverse order, with /dev/sdc3 at the top, /dev/sdc2 next one down, etc, all the way to /dev/sda1 at the bottom. After partitioning sda, the order was /dev/sdc3 at the top, then sda3,2,1, then sdb2,1. So if you use one of these installers, pay attention to which partition you're choosing. Edit: That's not quite right, but I don't remember the exact order. What I remember is that the sdc partitions were not all together in the list.
Also, zinstaller.03, which shows the drives in order when I run it from the hard drive of my main machine didn't work on the test machine. It wouldn't show any partitions, which is what it does for me in a VM.
Post a reply
Jump to:

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.

phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.