AUR (en) - linux-lqx

Search Criteria

Enter search criteria

Search by

Keywords

Out of Date

Sort by

Sort order

Per page

Package Details: linux-lqx-docs 6.12.4.lqx1-1

Package Actions

Git Clone URL:	https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-lqx.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base:	linux-lqx
Description:	Documentation for the Linux Liquorix kernel
Upstream URL:	https://liquorix.net/
Keywords:	bbr2 bfq futex pds proton zen
Licenses:	GPL-2.0-only
Submitter:	akurei
Maintainer:	sir_lucjan (damentz)
Last Packager:	damentz
Votes:	161
Popularity:	1.28
First Submitted:	2011-08-08 16:08 (UTC)
Last Updated:	2024-12-09 15:34 (UTC)

Dependencies (12)

linux-lqx^AUR
bc (bc-gh^AUR) (make)
cpio (cpio-git^AUR) (make)
gettext (gettext-git^AUR) (make)
git (git-git^AUR, git-gl^AUR) (make)
libelf (elfutils-git^AUR) (make)
pahole (pahole-git^AUR) (make)
perl (perl-git^AUR) (make)
python (python37^AUR, python311^AUR, python310^AUR) (make)
tar (tar-git^AUR, busybox-coreutils^AUR) (make)
xz (xz-git^AUR) (make)
zstd (zstd-git^AUR, zstd-static^AUR) (make)

Required by (0)

Sources (3)

Pinned Comments

damentz commented on 2020-08-31 15:22 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-21 18:25 (UTC) by damentz)

Official binaries of linux-lqx, linux-lqx-headers, and linux-lqx-docs are now available: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#liquorix

Signing key import instructions: sudo pacman-key --keyserver hkps://keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 9AE4078033F8024D && sudo pacman-key --lsign-key 9AE4078033F8024D

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Next › Last »

td123 commented on 2011-11-23 06:36 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I guess I wont take ownership of this package then.. I did manage to rebase against the [core] linux PKGBUILD. You can find the package at: http://ompldr.org/vYmV2Ng/linux-lqx-3.1.1-1.src.tar.gz fyi, this package is *a lot* cleaner and perhaps more bug free than the one provided on this page. Possibly easier to maintain. I haven't experienced any problems so far with my package.

akurei commented on 2011-11-22 22:31 (UTC)

I know, I am not maintining this anymore, and thus should not interfere, but please td123, leave the options for make xconfig and make menuconfig etc in. They're useful for everyone and don't harm anyone.

td123 commented on 2011-11-22 21:49 (UTC)

There is a good reason those patches do get applied to the arch kernel (fix freezes on certain hardware). The arch kernel does the compression also, so I think it's safe to say that this kernel should be using _compress_modules="yes" for all cases. I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want this. The problem with creating another linux-lqx pkg in the aur is that it would be a duplicate. I guess for now, I will just try reworking the PKGBUILD and see what you guys think before posting it here...

shivik commented on 2011-11-22 19:15 (UTC)

I'm kind of against this. The main idea is to get the base kernel with the liquorix patchset applied only. As for the options - almost all of the other AUR kernels have those and they're kind of useful sometimes. Maybe _compress_modules is useless... A PKGBUILD cleanup would be nice though Your ideas are by no means bad,but I think this package should be left the way it is. Maybe you should create a new kernel based on the -lqx one and realize your ideas.

td123 commented on 2011-11-22 18:14 (UTC)

I'll try to rebase this kernel against the latest linux in [core]. My current thoughts are what to do about patches that get applied? Also, I'm planning on removing some if not all of the options provided at the top: _menu, _config, _compress_modules And general cleanup of the PKGBUILD so that future maintenance would be a lot easier. Does anyone have any opinions for or against this? If I can't update the PKGBUILD in about a week, I will just give up since that will probably mean I don't have enough time to figure all of this out.

shivik commented on 2011-10-31 06:29 (UTC)

I tried it - 18 hours running already with no problems. I can update the PKGBUILD here if there's no one else to do it.

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-10-30 23:13 (UTC)

anyone tried substituting the 8 patch for the 6 this PKGBUILD calls for? I'd try but exams taking up soo much time... Anyhow thanks.

damentz commented on 2011-10-29 21:05 (UTC)

You might want to look at this post: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about1917.html LVM requires you to have at least three numbers in your kernel version. For instance, 3.0-6.dmz.1-liquorix-amd64 broke support for LVM and other disk layer user space, but adding in a second 0 for compatibility (3.0.0-6.dmz.1-liquorix-amd64) with the old 2.6.n format works around this bug. You can check with `uname -r`, make sure you have three numbers in the kernel version (3.0.0 for instance). I suspect that you only need to modify your package scripts to accommodate this change.