Install Debian Stable for 10th gen Intel CPUs

[Grugru]

Hello,

I want to build my own PC (this will be my first time), and after some research I found that my ideal setup would be the following:

- Debian Testing for the OS (I have been using Debian stable for some years now)
- Intel Core i5-10500 for the CPU
- TUF GAMING B460-PRO (WI-FI) for the motherboard

However, I am concerned about hardware compatibility, namely networking and integrated GPU (see for instance this post, from one month ago http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... t=10th+gen). From what I understand, to install Debian Testing I need first to install Stable and then to upgrade to Testing. However this requires the network to work.

Since Debian 10.5 has been released this month, I was wondering if Debian now supports 10th gen Intel CPUs and associated motherboards (with integrated GPU and wifi cards). Has any one already tried these? If if does not work out of the box, do you think that making it work would be difficult (I am an average Linux user, I would say)?

Cheers

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Since Debian 10.5 has been released this month, I was wondering if Debian now supports 10th gen Intel CPUs and associated motherboards (with integrated GPU and wifi cards).

No.

It's called "stable" because the package versions don't change, the name is not a synonym for reliability.

IIRC 10th generation Intel integrated graphics chips need a newer Mesa version which isn't even available from the buster-backports repositories.

EDIT: for your networking problem you could try the buster-backports image linked in my signature but I would recommend Arch over Debian testing (because it's an actual rolling release rather than just a development branch) unless you want to actually help out with the development of the next release.

[BobPeters61]

The testing release has the newer mesa stack to support the Intel Graphics 630 on my 10th Gen. i5, but in the past couple of weeks, I've been getting failed updates on testing for missing dependencies. I thought that was only supposed to happen on unstable.

So I went ahead and went to the other Debian-based release I had heard of that supports this hardware: MX Linux ahs (advanced hardware support) 64.

As for the network firmware on Debian, my motherboard needed non-free firmware for its ethernet port, but that could be just the model of motherboard I bought. However, the thing to do there is to start the netinstall boot and before it gets to erasing the boot drive, it scans for the hardware and if you need a non-free firmware file it'll give the name of the file. The idea is to write down the name of the file and then on a different computer google for it and download the necessary package to put on a second flash drive.

Then, you can start over on the netinstall and insert the flash drive with the firmware package when it again gives the prompt and click "yes" before continuing on with the install.

As for the testing install, you don't need to install stable and "upgrade" to it, you get the testing netinstall image from https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/

[stevepusser]

Hey, MX dev here that was involved in the AHS version. Did it work well for you?

The new MX KDE edition is also based on AHS, though with Buster's stable Plasma 5.14.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

The testing release has the newer mesa stack to support the Intel Graphics 630 on my 10th Gen. i5, but in the past couple of weeks, I've been getting failed updates on testing for missing dependencies. I thought that was only supposed to happen on unstable.

No, transitions are a "feature" of both development branches. That's why I recommend Arch instead if you don't want to actually help with Debian development

As for the testing install, you don't need to install stable and "upgrade" to it, you get the testing netinstall image from https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/

Yes but that image supplies the testing version of the Debian installer, which might be a bit buggy. The official recommendation is to use the stable installer and upgrade the system from there (unless you want to actually test the development version of the installer ofc).

[BobPeters61]

Hey, MX dev here that was involved in the AHS version. Did it work well for you?

It works perfectly, thank you.

MX has a lot of stuff included that I normally wouldn't install. That desktop time and system usage display widget, for example. But I guess that's what makes it a "midweight" distro rather than a lighter one like vanilla Debian. And hardware for which the ahs is needed hardly notices any difference in overhead on that account. I normally add on a cinnamon desktop (I like what I like.) so the whole XFCE v. KDE v. Gnome preference thing is only on the first boot of a new install for me anyhow. But there are a few little differences left that aren't really much of an issue but I do prefer what I get in Debian to what I get in MX.

Until Debian Stable repositories catch up with 10th gen. Intel graphics, MX is quite satisfactory in the meantime.

[BobPeters61]

...That's why I recommend Arch instead if you don't want to actually help with Debian development

...The official recommendation is to use the stable installer and upgrade the system from there (unless you want to actually test the development version of the installer ofc).

Not so much of a matter of will as it is of my not having the knowhow or credentials to participate in the "nuts and bolts" of system development.

Best I have to offer there is the occasional financial contribution to the project.

[developmentor]

newer kernel (5.7.0.0) in buster-backports repo works with no issue. tested gpu, network adapters etc.

tested pc: i5-10500 with q chipset..

[BobPeters61]

Most comprehensive and comparative feedback I can give, since it seems to me to possibly contradict the previous reply. Tested PC: i5 10400 and a V490 chipset.

Trying to install from the weekly Debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso said I needed a regulatory.db file I couldn't satisfy so I used the debian-bullseye-DI-alpha2-amd64-netinst I already had and the firmware packages I had already downloaded for my computer.

Updating apt got me to use apt to upgrade both additional firmware packages to newer versions. No video issues on gnome or cinnamon desktops. Cinnamon gave no errors.

Code: Select all

$ inxi -G
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel driver: i915 v: kernel 
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.8 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa 
  resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz 
  OpenGL: renderer: Mesa Intel UHD Graphics 630 (CML GT2) v: 4.6 Mesa 20.1.5 

Using the Buster-Backports installer linked in Head_on_a_Stick's sig:
Logging into newly install system as root did enable me to run tasksel to get the desktop environment, but tasksel stopped in process with a warning that it was about to delete its own kernel and recommended skipping that. Clicking not to skip that completed run, but made system unbootable on reboot attempt as warned. Reinstalled. Clicking to skip that ended tasksel with apt failure and desktop not installed. However, apt could then finish gnome install already retrieved.

On gnome Synaptic couldn't open with admin privileges so it could only show packages but not install or remove them. Also on gnome, minor hanging of locally stored mp4 video on totem. You almost had to look for it but would inevitably notice sooner or later and can't unnotice. Cinnamon loaded in harddware rendering mode with warning of no hardware video acceleration and same video playback on same player was hanging too badly to watch.

Code: Select all

$ inxi -G
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel driver: i915 v: kernel 
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: i915 resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz 
  OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 7.0 256 bits) v: 3.3 Mesa 18.3.6 

Buster stable 10.5 installed from current netinstall iso:
The text scrolling screen in bootup even ran in low res. until I edited sources.list in nano to add backports manually, then used Synaptic to pick out and add latest linux-image and linux-headers packages for my system. Reboot and bootup text scrolled at high res. like it should, then everything had exactly the same issues as the Backports install before it in this reply.

Code: Select all

$ inxi -G
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel driver: i915 v: kernel 
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: vesa unloaded: fbdev,modesetting 
  resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz 
  OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 7.0 256 bits) v: 3.3 Mesa 18.3.6 

While not a Debian issue per se, I also noted that the only other debian-based release (other than Bullseye) that works right with this hardware, MX ahs x64 release shows this information:

Code: Select all

$ inxi -G
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel driver: i915 v: kernel 
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa 
  resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz 
  OpenGL: renderer: Mesa Intel UHD Graphics 630 (CML GT2) v: 4.6 Mesa 20.0.7 

So I guess I just hope that when Debian 11 stable comes out it'll have mesa 20+ as well.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Using the Buster-Backports installer linked in Head_on_a_Stick's sig:
Logging into newly install system as root did enable me to run tasksel to get the desktop environment, but tasksel stopped in process with a warning that it was about to delete its own kernel and recommended skipping that. Clicking not to skip that completed run, but made system unbootable on reboot attempt as warned. Reinstalled. Clicking to skip that ended tasksel with apt failure and desktop not installed. However, apt could then finish gnome install already retrieved.

Thank you very much for the feedback, buster-backports has moved on to a newer ABI version for the kernel since I released v10.5.0 so I am in the process of updating the image as I type this. The next version will include more firmware packages (from sid and dated 2020-07-21) but the old Mesa version so you still won't have hardware acceleration for your integrated graphics chip, sorry.

On gnome Synaptic couldn't open with admin privileges so it could only show packages but not install or remove them.

That's because of Wayland, Synaptic will work fully if you choose the X session instead or if you open up your system to local root connections:

Code: Select all

xhost +local:

Just be sure to lock it down again afterwards:

Code: Select all

xhost -local:

So I guess I just hope that when Debian 11 stable comes out it'll have mesa 20+ as well.

You could add the MX repositories using my guide and install their backported Mesa packages in buster.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

You could add the MX repositories using my guide and install their backported Mesa packages in buster.

The newest mesa is not backported for a reason - it can break a lot of things...

[sgosnell]

Being rather old, I bought an Intel NUC barebone with the 10th generation CPU with the intention of it being the last computer I intend to buy, so I got the latest I could find. I couldn't get the minimal installers to run, but the Debian LiveDVD ran and installed fine. It wouldn't boot to the desktop, but it would boot to a recovery shell. I installed the 5.7 kernel from Sid, and all the firmware I thought pertinent, by downloading on another computer and using sneakernet to get them to the NUC. It then booted fine, and so far it is running without issues. I just installed the latest kernel from Experimental, 5.8, just to see, and that seems to work well. I'm running Sid and that upgrade was mostly painless. ISTM the 10th gen CPUs need a 5 series kernel.

[stevepusser]

You could add the MX repositories using my guide and install their backported Mesa packages in buster.

The newest mesa is not backported for a reason - it can break a lot of things...

Such as? Please show your work.

The MX AHS and KDE edition which also uses AHS pretty much refutes your statement, though. We did have to add an override for a bug in Mesa 20 that forces Intel GPUs that use the "intel" driver instead of modesetting by choice or because of age to use the wrong driver, but we fixed it!

Mesa 19.X also supports 10th generation and doesn't have that bug, and is a bit easier to backport. Generally, first you have to backport a newer llvm compiler toolchain unless it's already in backports, and that's a very heavy build, and then you can use the new llvm to build the new mesa.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

You could add the MX repositories using my guide and install their backported Mesa packages in buster.

The newest mesa is not backported for a reason - it can break a lot of things...

Such as? Please show your work.

Quite a few issues open upstream: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/

MX doesn't have very many users compared to Debian so you may not be seeing a representative sample.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Just for the record and the attention of any potential testers:

I am in the process of updating the image as I type this

I've updated the image to v10.5.1 and tested the 'tasksel' command to confirm that it now all works as expected without error.

[stevepusser]

...
MX doesn't have very many users compared to Debian so you may not be seeing a representative sample.

So all the Bullseye and Sid users here are just not suffering those bugs?

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

So all the Bullseye and Sid users here are just not suffering those bugs?

They do, but I would say that most of them are installing Debian testing/sid just because they want to live on the edge, and not because they are interested in Debian development - no bug reports

F.e. this report (*)
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/3358
shows that bugs in Mesa can cause that HW acceleration in a Web Browser will crash the entire graphics stack - and the effect is exactly the same as described in this topic:
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=147159

(*) For everyone who would like to check that bug report: DO NOT follow the link included in the description - it can crash even the Mesa v18.3 used in Debian stable, unless You'll disable the HW acceleration in the browser.

[stevepusser]

So...that's still not a new bug if it's also present in Buster...

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

Yes - but it's a very interesting case

[Head_on_a_Stick]

...
MX doesn't have very many users compared to Debian so you may not be seeing a representative sample.

So all the Bullseye and Sid users here are just not suffering those bugs?

I am more optimistic than Tomazzi — I prefer to believe that the experienced testing/unstable users are reporting any problems through the correct channels rather than opening pointless threads here to whine about them.