Many thanks.
Liquorix vs cdemu [Solved]
Re: Liquorix vs cdemu
Once again dear friends the new kernel wants to remove vhba-dkms to install itself.... no update for the module has happened on sourceforge since march so am I forced to defer updating the kernel for now?
How do I tell Discover to do that if this is the case?
How do I tell Discover to do that if this is the case?
Re: Liquorix vs cdemu
If you're using Liquorix uninstall the metapackage "linux-image-liquorix-amd64" and "linux-headers-liquorix-amd64" then it won't automatically update... <opinion> I think blindly blanket updating your kernel is a bad idea, especially liquorix..</opinion>
Re: Liquorix vs cdemu
The dependencies for the 6.15 and 6.16 Liquorix kernel now conflict with vhba-dkms, since it has an internal module. Does cdemu work with it?
MXPI = MX Package Installer
QSI = Quick System Info from menu
The MX Test repository is mostly backports; not the same as Debian testing
QSI = Quick System Info from menu
The MX Test repository is mostly backports; not the same as Debian testing
Re: Liquorix vs cdemu
I uninstalled the metapackage for now.
I guess cdemu is kinda odd because internal package or not it requires vhba-dkms for at least deamon startup. Might be an oversight on the part of the developers I dunno. I lack the skill to find out how to fiddle with it to use the internal module instead.
It's probably going to be "real fun" with MX25 or it will be easier but that's something to find out in the future.
I guess cdemu is kinda odd because internal package or not it requires vhba-dkms for at least deamon startup. Might be an oversight on the part of the developers I dunno. I lack the skill to find out how to fiddle with it to use the internal module instead.
It's probably going to be "real fun" with MX25 or it will be easier but that's something to find out in the future.