SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Considering that I wrote "testing" why I got packages from slackware/a directory?
It is because of the PRIORITY setting in your /etc/slackpkg/slackpkg.conf file. This sets the order in which it will look for packages. The default is set to patches, %PKGMAIN (which is the original packages in the slackware or slackware64 directory), extra, pasture, and finally testing.
If you want the testing kernels through slackpkg, you'd need to move testing to a higher priority than %PKGMAIN (since patches aren't being used in -current, that option does nothing right now).
Code:
PRIORITY=( testing patches %PKGMAIN extra pasture )
Keep in mind, this will prioritize all of the testing/ packages above the normal install, so in addition to the kernels, you'll also get php-7.2 and efibootmgr-0.6.0. Both of the existing php and efibootmgr packages will be upgraded to the testing versions unless you blacklist them (and then you'll need to keep up with them manually).
And efibootmgr has been in there since the 14.1 development cycle:
Code:
Thu Sep 19 06:48:59 UTC 2013
a/efibootmgr-0.5.4-x86_64-1.txz: Upgraded.
Well, reverted to an older version really. :) It was reported that
efibootmgr-0.6.0 was silently failing to actually write the new variables
to EFI, but that 0.5.4 works. I'm currently unable to test this here as I'm
still using DUET UEFI, and changes to the UEFI variables do not persist
between boots. I also added a few patches from Fedora's repo that seem
reasonable to include. The old (newer) version was moved to /testing in
case it might work better for someone.
Thanks to John Yost for the bug report.
Your laptop computer is similar with my mini-PC, which has a Intel Core2 Duo Mobile P8400 and other laptop-like hardware, but in a very small desktop case.
And in that mini-PC the single stable kernels are the 3.9.x series.
tested kernel-4.14.4, not convincing, segfaults as usual (on first boot).
I am curious just try next time to do a cold reboot. There is a reason for this. Not a restart but a "shutdown -h now" .
This would point me in a direction.
Reason I say this I could reproduce on a old intel duo. I drug out of the closet. But doing a cold reboot after upgrade did not cause this issue.
let me know.
Waiting for it to freeze pushing it.
Distribution: slackware, slackware from scratch, LFS, slackware [arm], linux Mint...
Posts: 1,564
Original Poster
Rep:
I tested what suggested Drakeo: cold reboot.
I halted the system.
Cold boot one: ok
Halt the system.
Cold boot two: see the photos, something new
- stall a long time on : [drm] RC6 on
- stall a long time on USB: disconnect
- then segfaulted
There is no improvement since kernel-4.14.0, in my humble opinion, it's even getting worse (?).
Worry not, I feel that everything will be fixed until x.y.10, which usually was adopted in the past.
I wonder why...
I propose to all you guys, up to our BDFL: lets take a break and to leave the Kernel guys to do their job, until at least the 4.14.10 is released. You know, just like was in the past.
We can test other things meantime, you know?
Last edited by Darth Vader; 12-06-2017 at 03:24 AM.
But I have only 4GB memory, then I considered better to use 32 bits, to minimize memory consumption.
Not really sure if it is true 100%, but I have the bias that enter more things in the memory of a 32 bits, when you have (less than or) 4GB.
The linux kernel will need to use PAE to address more than about 3GB of memory in practice (try running 'free' with PAE turned off and you will see some of your 4GB disappear). That doesn't mean that a binary with 32-bit pointers might not run faster than a binary of the same program with 64-bit pointers, but using 4GB as your cut-off is somewhat arbitrary.
BTW, I plan for this weekend to switch to Plasma5 in one of my computers, then to seriously try to add back enough KDE4 support for, well... I think there is no one who missed for what.
Last edited by Darth Vader; 12-06-2017 at 05:28 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.