My experience with installation of the kernel Liquorix 6.12.10-1  [Solved]

Message
Author
Wirtualny
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:46 am

My experience with installation of the kernel Liquorix 6.12.10-1

#1 Post by Wirtualny »

I need new kernel because of one device. I have decided to try Liquorix 6.12.10-1, but without enabling AHS repositories.

An interesting thing happened during the process of kernel installation. The green icon of an update in the left panel informed me that I have many packages to upgrade. I have browsed that list and most of the packages looked like firmware from AHS repo. I discarded it and moreover cancelled new kernel installation in MXPI console (because if this kernel means I will be nagged with AHS packages, I wouldn't want it).

After that, I have looked to MX repo manager. AHS repositories looked to be not enabled - despite abovementioned attempt during kernel installation. Then I have tried again to install pure Liquorix 6.12.10-1. This time, I haven't been offered with new firmware by update manager. After reboot to Liquorix 6.12.10-1, I'm not nagged with AHS packages in update manager too.

We could say that probably I must have mistakenly clicked in the first attempt "Liquorix 64 bit (ahs updates package)" in MXPI instead of "Liquorix 6.12.10-1", but I'm 99,99% sure that I have clicked correctly (these positions in MXPI are not neighboring directly, and I deliberately cared to click the particular kernel number).

Another thing was:

Code: Select all

Binary /lib/modules/6.12.10-1-liquorix-amd64/build/scripts/sign-file not found, modules won't be signed.
Is it OK, that it's not signed?

Anyway: after one hour with Liquorix 6.12.10-1, I have very positive impressions with this kernel. (I don't use NVIDIA GPU)

User avatar
j2mcgreg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:04 pm

Re: My experience with installation of the kernel Liquorix 6.12.10-1  [Solved]

#2 Post by j2mcgreg »

@Wirtualny wrote:
Is it OK, that it's not signed?
Yes. It just means that it hasn't been OK'd by Microsoft to work with Secure Boot. However that is moot because MX currently will not install with Secure Boot enabled.
HP 15; ryzen 3 5300U APU; 500 Gb SSD; 8GB ram
HP 17; ryzen 3 3200; 500 GB SSD; 12 GB ram
Idea Center 3; 12 gen i5; 256 GB ssd;

In Linux, newer isn't always better. The best solution is the one that works.

Wirtualny
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:46 am

Re: My experience with installation of the kernel Liquorix 6.12.10-1

#3 Post by Wirtualny »

Thank you for the info.

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 14585
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:07 pm

Re: My experience with installation of the kernel Liquorix 6.12.10-1

#4 Post by Stevo »

Depending on your hardware, you may get away without needing new AHS firmware or drivers with an AHS kernel, but we're not going to guarantee it.

You saw all the AHS upgrades because MXPI temporarily enables the AHS repo to install the kernel, but you don't have to upgrade them. I build the Liquorix kernels in vanilla Bookworm virtual machines using pbuilder, nothing exotic there. It's just that sometimes newer kernels want different firmware for the same device, and most out-of-kernel drivers like Nvidia will need upgrades from AHS.

Oh joy, there's a new 6.13 kernel. I think I'll let that sit for a while before seeing what updates that will need.
MXPI = MX Package Installer
QSI = Quick System Info from menu
The MX Test repository is mostly backports; not the same as Debian testing

Post Reply

Return to “General”