Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #263588
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? |
| Date | 2023-11-16 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HAJm1-5PdD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <HAr5L-5EcY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <HArIt-5EEY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAsuR-5Fac-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAtqV-5FHH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAudj-5FWU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2023-11-15 13:54:51 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 15 Nov 2023 at 20:01:20 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15 18:06:45 +0000, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -0000, Curt wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this other
> > > > > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why I suggested ignoring the message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it kind of looks newer if you're a not very bright software
> > > > > construct, he opined.
> > > >
> > > > But the bookworm-backports kernel is even newer.
> > > > So why not this one?
> > >
> > > Because it's a different package?
> >
> > There is no guarantee that a package with the same name in a
> > different distribution has the same meaning (because packages
> > get renamed...). So I would say that this is not a good reason.
>
> Well, it would seem strange to provide a backport for a package
> and call it by a different name. But with kernels, there's always
> the problem of a myriad of slightly different versions, so a
> fuzzy name match might be appropriate.
In any case, if a package is renamed (which particularly applies to
unstable, I don't know about backports), I would expect reportbug
to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.
In short, its search for newer versions should be based on the
source package rather than the binary package.
> > But I'm still wondering where reportbug gets this particular
> > version 6.1.55+1~bpo11+1, as it is not in bullseye-backports.
>
> I just downloaded /debian/dists/bullseye-backports/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz
> (2023-11-02 13:59 395K), and it contains:
[...]
Note that for the Packages files, reportbug just uses the files from
the /var/lib/apt/lists directory, but I don't have anything matching
*bullseye* there.
> so there do appear to be 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 candidates, like
> linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-amd64-unsigned.
Note the difference between 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 and 6.1.55+1~bpo11+1
(a "-" has been replaced by "+").
> I don't know how reportbug operates; nor do I know how to
> drive madison—perhaps it's seeing the third from last line.
> But I'm not sure why you're making such an issue out of
> reportbug's harmless suggestion to check whether you're
> up-to-date.
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/reportbug/checkversions.py uses
RMADISON_URL = 'https://qa.debian.org/madison.php?package=%s&text=on'
NEWQUEUE_URL = 'http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.822'
Now, for the RMADISON_URL URL:
url = RMADISON_URL % package
if dists:
url += '&s=' + ','.join(dists)
# select only those lines that refers to source pkg
# or to binary packages available on the current arch
url += '&a=source,all,' + arch
try:
page = open_url(url, http_proxy, timeout)
If package is the binary package, I don't get the expected
version.
If I use "linux" (for the source package), I get in particular
linux | 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 | bullseye-backports | source
which looks like what is output, but since the 4 field is "source",
it is ignored:
if a == 'source':
continue
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-14 13:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-11-14 13:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2023-11-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-14 22:30 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-11-14 22:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-14 23:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2023-11-15 04:20 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2023-11-15 09:00 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-15 18:20 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-11-15 17:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-15 18:20 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2023-11-15 19:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-15 20:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-15 21:00 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-16 13:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-16 21:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-17 13:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-18 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-18 23:30 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-19 06:50 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2023-11-17 15:10 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-18 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-11-18 15:20 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2023-11-18 15:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-19 06:50 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-18 23:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-19 06:50 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-20 11:20 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-21 04:40 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-11-16 13:30 +0100
Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm? Tim Woodall <debianuser@woodall.me.uk> - 2023-11-19 06:00 +0100
csiph-web