MX Linux Forum

Good Evening All,


I have had MX-Linux on a smaller drive to test it for the last two months. It's perfect for me.

Now - I want to transplant my entire install to another drive... (No I am not using systemd)

I just want to be damned sure about the process - before I hose my old Artix Linux install and overwrite it with MX.

a) Use Snapshot tool and create a snapshot.

b) Use the Live USB Maker to create a bootable image to one of my portable USB HDD's.

c) Boot my machine from the USB, and select the Install icon.


And then if I understand correctly, my existing MX-Linux install and all of it's settings, will be transplanted exactly as it was to the primary drive.

Do I understand correctly?


Thanks!

Dave

That's correct. It will exclude your actual data, whatever's in your Documents, Desktop, Downloads, Music, Videos etc. folders, if you tell it to, to get a smaller iso that's more likely to fit on an 8GB or 16GB (or smaller) USB stick. Then you would back those up separately, and restore them after the MX installation.

Thank you for the confirmation...I appreciate it!


Dave

You can tell Live USB Maker to make a general snapshot for use by others that doesn't include your personal settings, but the default is a personal snapshot that includes them.

Thank you. I knew that from doing this to validate that the live USB boot allowed me to see my personal files for when I was on the road.....I just wanted to validate that it was suitable for a complete transplant from a smaller SSD to my main 1TB SSD.........

This distro is awesome. I appreciate Debian Stable - with the ability to pull individual packages from "Debian Testing" when I need a new app - like my development environment... I'm retired now, I just don't like the constant fight to keep Arch based distro's running properly.

MX-Linux has been rock stable during my own stress tests. It's worked perfectly.....Thus my desire to move it to my primary drive, and erase Artix Linux - which is the current distro on my primary drive....

Thanks!


Dave

Welcome.

It's not recommended to install packages from Debian Testing though. Things might work fine for some time, until one day it doesn't.

The MX test repo is not Debian testing. Test repo contains newer packages rebuilt to be compatible with Debian stable.

@asqwerth,

THANK YOU for this clarification. I had ASSumed that "Testing" was Debian Testing....

Your post is very good to know.

THANKS!

Dave

Note the name of the mx repo in the mx package installer (mxpi). It's not "Testing" . Never was.

It's just "Test" .

It's called Test because the packaging team would not want such packages moved to Stable repo right away. There might be unexpected issues or conflicts with existing Stable packages. There might be errors in the packaging. Users of said package should use the relevant thread in the package requests subforum to give feedback as to whether it works or not. If sufficient positive feedback is garnered, that package might eventually be moved to Stable.

So don't keep test repo enabled by default such that every updateable package within gets installed on your system . Just use it via mxpi (it works like a faucet, turning test repo on then off again) to install individual packages, where needed, on a piecemeal basis. That way it's easier to troubleshoot if problems arise.

I felt it was prudent to clarify, in case you decided one day to just access Debian Testing yourself to install a package you could not find in MX Test repo, thinking they were the same.....

https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian

@asqwerth,

Thank you. At one time I did have Debian testing on my production machine - and it was broken badly by an update. I then moved to Arch in 2004.

I don't use testing - except to get a particular newer package like CodeBlocks.... Way back when - I learned my lesson about using Debian Testing with Debian itself - and I paid the price.

So may I ask - what's the difference then between Testing and Backports? Almost sounds like they serve the same purpose - newer packages. What's the difference in stability between Backports and Testing? What's done different by the devs between these two?


Thanks!


Dave

asqwerth wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:45 pm :
The MX test repo is not Debian testing.

Test repo contains newer packages rebuilt to be compatible with Debian stable.

---

That's because Debian Testing (currently Bullseye) is a Distribution, the next Release in the making,
while a MX Test Repo is a repository, one of a few, that is a source of packages for a MX Distribution.

Actually, each MX release has its own Test Repo.

The MX 19.X distribution (based on debian buster) is fed by a number of repos, some debian "stable" repos, some MX repos, and few that are "turned on" by demand as needed:

• debian buster
• debian buster-updates
• debian-security buster
• # (opt) debian buster-backports
• mx/repo buster
  (MX "stable" repo for Buster-based MX-19)
• # (opt) mx/testrepo buster
  (MX "test" repo for Buster-based MX-19)

To simplify, I've left the "sections" (main, non-free, contrib, etc) out of the picture,

Each MX distribution, MX-19, MX-18, MX-17, etc, is made up of a number of repository streams, some coming from debian, some from MX, some are always "on" and some are best turned "on" as needed, then turned back "off".

It's a carefully orchestrated balancing act.

Which can run off the rails when some random, stray repo is fed into the mix.