Talk:Installation guide

Notice for editors

systemd tools such as hostnamectl, timedatectl and localectl do not work in the installation chroot environment, so please do not propose to use them in the guide unless you can prove that they have been made to work also in that case. See [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] for some past discussions about this issue.
Due to the wide variety of available boot loaders, the installation guide refers to Arch boot process#Boot loader instead of making a specific recommendation for the installed system. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] for some past discussions on this topic.
While Category:Installation process lists additional installation methods (e.g. archinstall or systemd-firstboot), the installation guide does not reference them due to their specific nature. Install Arch Linux with accessibility options is an exception. See [11] for a past discussion on this topic.

-- The ArchWiki Administrators 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Update arch-chroot step

Latest comment: 14 February5 comments3 people in discussion

The last release of arch-install-scripts has introduced a cleaner way to handle mounts in the arch-chroot step. Since the installation medium provides the right version of systemd, I think there's no downsides to switch to using the -S flag in the guide?

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

👍 -- nl6720 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll wait until the next release to be extra cautious, there's an edge case that we should not hit as the guide does not show it being used with relative paths, but I'd rather be safe. Erus Iluvatar (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

May we close this topic? At least, I can't find anything related… — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to keep this open until there is a new release cut for arch-install-scripts.

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Boot the live environment Note grammar

Latest comment: 22 May2 comments2 people in discussion

Current state: "You will need to disable Secure Boot to boot the installation medium."

Proposed state: "You have to disable Secure Boot to boot the installation medium."

"need to" — kind of personal necessity

"have to" — external obligation (there is no choice) Aaaand… there is no choice indeed.

Well, English is not my native language: I'm not sure about "will have to" vs just "have to", but "need to" vs "have to" is quite obvious for me.

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

IMO the "need" can also apply to obligation, e.g. "you need to eat to survive" feels right while "you have to eat to survive" rings weird for some reason. Digging a little deeper, I'd say "have to" sounds more familiar than "need to", which would answer our question as we're aiming for a "formal, professional, and concise language". Not a native speaker either, so I'll let others chime in just in case.

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"installation medium" vs "installation image"

Latest comment: 4 May2 comments2 people in discussion

Inspired by Special:Diff/872738 by @Nl6720.

(1) / Introductory section / "The installation medium provides accessibility features"… — IMO, installation image does.

(2) Installation guide#Boot the live environment: "See pkglist.x86_64.txt for a list of the packages included in the installation medium."

Packages are included in the installation image, medium is just a flash drive (or so). At least, to my understanding.

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The installation medium is a medium to which the installation image has been written. In these sentences, IMO, "installation medium" is fine. Since there's also the netboot image, "installation image" wouldn't be entirely correct either for 2., since there are no packages in it. "Live environment" would be more correct there.

Special:Diff/872738 is a special case, because you can write the ISO in different ways and the tip doesn't apply to all of them.

-- nl6720 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply