On 1/22/25 01:12, Greg Wooledge wrote:
It's not yet clear to me whether you're trying to use a backported kernel
because
you *need* it, or because it has a higher number and you think higher
numbers are better.
I would like to optimize my laptop for creative audio usage (tracking,
running digital instruments, mixing, all what is commonly provided by
current Digital Audio Workstations (DAW)). For this I read and
understand that one important parameter of Linux optimization could be
to use a real time kernel, and to use some other more specialized audio
related components like JACK and nowadays also pipewire, and of course
configure them all correctly. Guides about the proper configuration are
published and I expect to be able to follow those guides successfully.
Concerning the required real time kernel functionality, it is commonly
commented, that current main stream kernels would actually be sufficient
for accomplishing sufficient prioritization of the audio related
communications and streams in the system, and I read that especially
kernel 6.12 would have received all wished functionality for this and
thus would be a very good choice to use.
So, as I usually prefer a Debian "stable" and am therefore on Bookworm,
and thought to keep things as simple as possible and to follow common
recommendations from the Linux audio community, I am about to deviate
from my strict "stable" path and give the kernel 6.12 from backports a
try for my step into audio related laptop Linux optimization.
I know that the backported kernel is not supported by the security team.
However, seeing how well the kernel backports team is trying to keep
backported kernels up-to-date, and upstream kernel developers continue
supporting the 6.12 LTS kernel with updates, and kernel 6.12 updates
from upstream being likely to continue to timely appear in the
bookworm-backports repository (with the respective delay), I thought to
now install currently newest linux-image-6.12.9+bpo-amd64-unsigned, and
to then configure my Debian to automatically receive all future 6.12
backport versions the same as Trixie, when stable, would also care for it.
I would have as up-to-date as possible kernel 6.12 in my Bookworm for my
audio optimizations, and I would stay in a good position to later on
upgrade to Trixie.
If Debian insiders would foresee that KDE in Trixie stabilizes and would
not undergo major changes no more, than I would consider to maybe right
away install Trixie now, which to my knowledge is expected to become
delivered with kernel 6.12, and also coming with up-to-date pipewire
etc. . But my observations do not point toward this to be expectable and
I better still postpone upgrading to Trixie.
So, I better stay with Bookworm, install the packported 6.12 kernel, and
hope to make life more comfortable by having kernel 6.12 updates become
installed automatically instead of frequently doing this the manual way.
Well, I thought that some easy receipt would pop up as an answer to my
question on how to achieve such automatic upgrades. As this did not
happen I conclude that the wished procedure is not so common and not
readily worked out by now. I will accept this and go for the repetitive
manual way then.
I'll figure out where to best place a feature request to the backports
kernel maintainers and ask them if they could provide for such case like
mine a meta-package like "linux-image-6.12+bpo-amd64". Installing that I
would expect such meta-package to then always draw in the most
up-to-date kernel from the 6.12 series, when becoming available in
backports. Similar meta-packages could of course also be helpful for
others who might want to stay within a certain series of kernels, like
6.13 etc.
I am not aware about the amount of work, which the maintenance of such
meta-package would add to the backports kernel team, though. Well, at
least I will place the suggestion to provide one, and if they cannot do,
then I of course understand and accept.
Thanks a lot to all of you trying to help me! It is much appreciated!
