4.8 kernels in repos

[Adrian]

Do we have the 4.7 kernel (the one that we are going to use in MX-16) in the repos?

[anticapitalista]

Do we have the 4.7 kernel (the one that we are going to use in MX-16) in the repos?

No. It is in Debian backports. Have we agreed to use the 4.7 backports kernel?

[Jerry3904]

My take: we should use 4.7.x as default in MX-16, b/c it will be recent, well tested and populated with drivers.

For people wanting easy access to something more recent, we will have the Package Installer and m_pav's respin.

[richb]

My take: we should use 4.7.x as default in MX-16, b/c it will be recent, well tested and populated with drivers.

For people wanting easy access to something more recent, we will have the Package Installer and m_pav's respin.

Agree

[Stevo]

If Debian pulls it out of backports like they did the 4.6 kernel, we'll have to rebuild them or at least just host the packages in our repo. There's something that keeps them from building on a MX 15 platform--probably some code in the rules file that doesn't allow for "MX" and "Fusion" coming out of lsb_release. We could try and hack it, rebuild them on straight Jessie virtual machines, or in an OBS Jessie virtual machine.

Just a side note, my particular laptop throws kernel oops with the fglrx driver and the 4.6+ Liquorix kernels, and also the 4.8 antiX one I tested. It hasn't with the Debian backports kernels, so I use those and can't eat my own Liquorix dog food kernels (yum). I'd guess it's something going on with a scheduler, but exactly what...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: maybe just installing Debian's lsb packages would allow it to build, at the cost of losing a bit of our customization.

[Adrian]

We probably needs the kernel in our repo anyway if we want to do a rolling release. At least initially in the mx16-test repo.

[Uncle Slacky]

I just tried it, and it gave me similar results to when I experimented with booting using the systemd option with earlier kernels- verrry slow boot and login, no compositor running (XFCE and Debian stable), no responsiveness, had to power cycle it to recover. I've reverted to 4.6 for now.

[v3g4n]

Been running it for the last week and everything is running smoothly here.

[Richard]

The Debian 4.7.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 and the 4.7.0-0.bpo.1-686 both work fine for me.
I plan to leave them at least until MX-16 since it has been mentioned as the probable default
and I haven't seen any benefit on my boxes with either 4.8-antiX or the 4.7-Liquorix.

Probably because I haven't run any benchmarks, just semi-useful subjective observation.

[yop]

I haven't seen any benefit on my boxes with either 4.8-antiX or the 4.7-Liquorix.

Probably because I haven't run any benchmarks, just semi-useful subjective observation.

indeed. 4.8 does some crypto stuff right for a change.