Liquorix 32bit Debian Bullseye dependency problems
GMaq
Status: Interested
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
Posts: 21
Reply Quote
Hi,

Yes I'm asking about 32bit Kernels with a straight face..

I develop AV Linux which is 64bit only and am a happy user of Liquorix and many reviewers have been very impressed with the performance Liquorix provides in AVL. I'm working on a side ISO project with both 32bit and 64bit versions and I have enabled the Liquorix Repo in my 32bit development builds and I'm unable to install the 32bit builds due to a dependency mismatch..

:: Code ::

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 linux-headers-liquorix-686 : Depends: linux-headers-5.1.0-20.1-liquorix-686 (= 5.1-24.1~bullseye) but it is not installable
 linux-image-liquorix-686 : Depends: linux-image-5.1.0-20.1-liquorix-686 (= 5.1-24.1~bullseye) but it is not installable
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.


I'm sure 32bit is a less-than-zero priority and understandably so but it would be nice to get the most recent builds available for 32bit installed if this is possible to fix easily.

Thanks very much for your many years of excellent work!
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4060
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
Damentz dropped 32 bit support for very good reasons, first being that the 32 bit ecosystem is increasingly prone to bugs not getting fixed because nobody is running 32 bit anymore.

Liquorix would not be the right kernel for your needs, you need to be using stuff that comes out of projects that support 32 bit. It was precisely, if my memory serves me right, because 32 bit bugs could not be dealt with, and were not getting fixed, that 32 bit support was dropped. Keep in mind, liquorix is a current bleeding edge kernel, ok, not quite bleeding, but it's a current kernel designed for current operating systems, so there is no use case that is valid for 32 bit support, thus, it was dropped, wisely in my opinion.

I speak as probably one of the last users of 32 bit Liquorix out there, I had 32 bit stuff running until the bitter end, but it's just not realistic to expect anyone except dedicated projects like AntiX to actually support 32 bit anymore, or distros that still ship that kernel, like Deiban. Expecting a current third party kernel like liquorix to support that is not realistic.

It is/was precisely because it was/is no longer possible to support 32 bit that 32 bit support was dropped. 5.1.0-20.1 was the last 32 bit Liquorix kernel shipped, I checked my files. If you want to try to build it using the Zen patches, you of course are free to do so, but it's not fair to ask anyone else to spend that unpaid time on something they stopped doing specifically because it was a waste of their time by the time it was dropped.

Somewhat similar to asking me to start maintaining Bash/gawk inxi again because 1 user wants it, it's just not going to happen.
Back to top
GMaq
Status: Interested
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
Posts: 21
Reply Quote
Ok, point made!

That all makes sense but would be helpful if it were posted on the Liquorix website or in a sticky on the forum..

I was never asking anyone to do anything they weren't already doing so if they're not doing it that's fine.
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4060
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
Talk to the guys at AntiX, they are nice people, and fairly dedicated to making old/ancient hardware run, or very limited hardware. You might find areas of common interest. Off the top of my head, besides Debian, who maintains most standard architectures, they are one of the most active in this arena currently, and are also easy to deal with and talk to.

I agree it wouldn't hurt for liquorix to note on the website that 32 bit support was stopped at 5.1 and will not be resumed, but I think it's honestly because as I noted, i was probably one of the last 32 bit users damentz was dealing with day to day, in fact, at times I wondered if he extended support longer than he should have because I was using it, though that's probably my trying to flatter myself. In other words, there's no demand, and everyone who was using it knows support dropped for 32 bit, so it's unusual to come across someone who actually is trying to get 32 bit stuff running. But it still wouldn't hurt to add a sentence on the page that 32 bit support was dropped.
Back to top
wildstar84
Status: Interested
Joined: 31 May 2017
Posts: 43
Location: Texas
Reply Quote
I second techadmin's antiX suggestion. I use antiX myself (but 64 bit now). While I prefer (and use) Liquorix kernels, I can say that antiX has also done a great job optimizing their kernels for desktop usage as well, so yes, with 32bit, you should still get a good experience with them!
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   

All times are GMT - 8 Hours