Kernel compiled with GCC13 whilst its not even in the system

Forum Forums Official Releases antiX-23 “Arditi del Popolo Kernel compiled with GCC13 whilst its not even in the system

  • This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated Apr 1-11:45 am by anticapitalista.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #138276
    Member
    kirara

      Linux version 6.1.42-antix.1-amd64-smp (anticap@antix1) (gcc (Debian 13.2.0-1) 13.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.41) #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Jul 31 18:30:05 EEST 2023

      As a consequence I cannot for example install anything like vmware which wants to use the same compiler as the kernel was compiled with :/

      Also trying to do a full upgrade I get heaps of crap again:

      The following NEW packages will be installed:
        sysvinit-utils-antix{b} 
      0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
      Need to get 24.9 kB of archives. After unpacking 96.3 kB will be used.
      The following packages have unmet dependencies:
       sysvinit-utils-antix : Conflicts: lsb-base (< 11.3~) but it is not going to be installed
                              Conflicts: lsb-base:i386 (< 11.3~) which is a virtual package, provided by:
                                         - sysvinit-utils:i386 (3.06-4) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                         - sysvinit-utils (3.06-4) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.06-4 is installed
                                         - lsb-base (11.6), but it is not going to be installed
                                         - sysvinit-utils:i386 (3.08-3~bpo12+2) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                         - sysvinit-utils (3.08-3~bpo12+2) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.06-4 is installed
                                         - sysvinit-utils-antix:i386 (3.05-6.0antix1) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                         - sysvinit-utils-antix (3.05-6.0antix1) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.05-6.0antix1 is to be installed
                                         - lsb-base (11.6.0antix1), but it is not going to be installed
                              Breaks: sysvinit-utils but 3.06-4 is installed
                              Breaks: sysvinit-utils:i386 but it is not going to be installed
       sysvinit-utils : Conflicts: lsb-base (< 11.3~) but it is not going to be installed
                        Conflicts: lsb-base:i386 (< 11.3~) which is a virtual package, provided by:
                                   - sysvinit-utils:i386 (3.06-4) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                   - sysvinit-utils (3.06-4) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.06-4 is installed
                                   - lsb-base (11.6), but it is not going to be installed
                                   - sysvinit-utils:i386 (3.08-3~bpo12+2) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                   - sysvinit-utils (3.08-3~bpo12+2) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.06-4 is installed
                                   - sysvinit-utils-antix:i386 (3.05-6.0antix1) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but it is not going to be installed
                                   - sysvinit-utils-antix (3.05-6.0antix1) provides lsb-base:i386=11.1.0, but 3.05-6.0antix1 is to be installed
                                   - lsb-base (11.6.0antix1), but it is not going to be installed

      I’m pretty sure upgrade wouldn’t help anyway as I have fully up to date Antix on other laptop and GCC13 is simply not present.

      #138277
      Forum Admin
      anticapitalista

        Update to the latest antiX kernel – 6.1.60 and remove the 6.1.42-antix.1-amd64-smp one once you are happy with the nwer one.

        Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

        antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

        #138282
        Member
        kirara

          Dunno how that would help is that compiled with gcc12?

          v gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnu –
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnu:i386 – GNU C compiler (cross compiler for amd64 architecture)
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnu-base:i386 – GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnux32 – GNU C compiler (cross compiler for x32 architecture)
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnux32:i386 – GNU C compiler (cross compiler for x32 architecture)
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnux32-base – GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
          p gcc-12-x86-64-linux-gnux32-base:i386 – GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
          p gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu – GNU C compiler for the arm64 architecture

          13 is not even in the packages.

          I have resolved this by building my custom 6.5 kernel with 12 and now vmware is happy to build the modules

          #138296
          Forum Admin
          anticapitalista

            Dunno how that would help is that compiled with gcc12?

            I have resolved this by building my custom 6.5 kernel with 12 and now vmware is happy to build the modules

            That’s why I suggested it.

            Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

            antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

          Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.