Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #204396 > unrolled thread

APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-14 11:20 +0100
    Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2019-01-14 12:00 +0100
      Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-14 12:20 +0100
      Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-14 13:30 +0100
        Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2019-01-14 13:30 +0100
          Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2019-01-16 22:40 +0100
            Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 22:40 +0100
              Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 23:50 +0100
                Stop insulting users (was: Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo) Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2019-01-17 09:40 +0100
                  Re: Stop insulting users Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 18:50 +0100
                    Re: Stop insulting users Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2019-01-18 19:40 +0100
                      Re: Stop insulting users Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-18 22:20 +0100
                        Re: Stop insulting users David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-18 23:30 +0100
                          Re: Stop insulting users Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-19 00:20 +0100
                            Re: Stop insulting users David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-19 02:10 +0100
          Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 22:40 +0100
      Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 08:10 +0100
        Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 11:10 +0100

#204396 — APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

We are upgrading our Debian servers (AMD64). We found that the following
kernels are available on public Debian mirrors:

kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
<http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb>
28-Oct-2018 05:46
4522628kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
<http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb>
04-Jan-2019 05:31             4529754

URL: http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/

We would expect that the latest 4.9.144-1 kernel would be the candidate.
However only 4.9.130-2 is listed as candidate:

test:~# apt-cache policy linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64

linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64:

  Installed: 4.9.130-2

  Candidate: 4.9.130-2

  Version table:

*** 4.9.130-2 500

        500 http://deb.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages

        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status


Could someone explain this behavior? (we did clean the apt cache)


Thanks and regards

Martin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#204399

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:18:55AM +0100, plataleas plataleas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We are upgrading our Debian servers (AMD64). We found that the following
> kernels are available on public Debian mirrors:
> 
> kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
> <http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb>
> 28-Oct-2018 05:46
> 4522628kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
> <http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb>
> 04-Jan-2019 05:31             4529754
> 
> URL: http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/
> 
> We would expect that the latest 4.9.144-1 kernel would be the candidate.
> However only 4.9.130-2 is listed as candidate:

4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not yet „active“ in the stable
distribution:

$ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64

It will be moved to the stable distribution with the next point release.

-nik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204400

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 Hi Nik

Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to extract this information from the
mirror server (CentOS based)?

Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
package as stable?

regards
Martin

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM plataleas plataleas <plataleas@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nik
>
> Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to extract this information from the
> mirror server (CentOS based)?
>
> Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
> package as stable?
>
> regards
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:18:55AM +0100, plataleas plataleas wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We are upgrading our Debian servers (AMD64). We found that the following
>> > kernels are available on public Debian mirrors:
>> >
>> > kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
>> > <
>> http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
>> >
>> > 28-Oct-2018 05:46
>> > 4522628kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
>> > <
>> http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
>> >
>> > 04-Jan-2019 05:31             4529754
>> >
>> > URL: http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/
>> >
>> > We would expect that the latest 4.9.144-1 kernel would be the candidate.
>> > However only 4.9.130-2 is listed as candidate:
>>
>> 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not yet „active“ in the stable
>> distribution:
>>
>> $ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
>> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
>> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64
>>
>> It will be moved to the stable distribution with the next point release.
>>
>> -nik
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204402

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Nik

Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to extract this information from the
mirror server (CentOS based)?

Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
package as stable?

regards
Martin



On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:18:55AM +0100, plataleas plataleas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are upgrading our Debian servers (AMD64). We found that the following
> > kernels are available on public Debian mirrors:
> >
> > kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
> > <
> http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.130-2_amd64.udeb
> >
> > 28-Oct-2018 05:46
> > 4522628kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
> > <
> http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/kernel-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-di_4.9.144-1_amd64.udeb
> >
> > 04-Jan-2019 05:31             4529754
> >
> > URL: http://ftp.cl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux/
> >
> > We would expect that the latest 4.9.144-1 kernel would be the candidate.
> > However only 4.9.130-2 is listed as candidate:
>
> 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not yet „active“ in the stable
> distribution:
>
> $ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64
>
> It will be moved to the stable distribution with the next point release.
>
> -nik
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204403

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

> Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to extract this information from the
> mirror server (CentOS based)?
> 
> Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
> package as stable?

http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz

-nik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204469

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

> With rmadison we can see that 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not
> yet „active“ in the stable
> distribution:
> 
> $ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
> linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64
> 
> You specified that this information is stored in Packages.xz. However I
> could find only 4.9.0-7 Kernel:
> 
> […]
> 
> Did we miss something?

Yes - probably updating your mirror ;):

nik@portux:~$ wget -q -O- http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz | xzgrep linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | grep Filename
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-dbg_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb

-nik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204470

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Indeed the mirror was not updated correctly. Sorry for that.

Thanks and regards
Martin

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > With rmadison we can see that 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but
> not
> > yet „active“ in the stable
> > distribution:
> >
> > $ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
> > linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
> > linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64
> >
> > You specified that this information is stored in Packages.xz. However I
> > could find only 4.9.0-7 Kernel:
> >
> > […]
> >
> > Did we miss something?
>
> Yes - probably updating your mirror ;):
>
> nik@portux:~$ wget -q -O-
> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz
> | xzgrep linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | grep Filename
> Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
> Filename:
> pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-dbg_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
>
> -nik
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204475

On 1/16/19 5:04 AM, plataleas plataleas wrote:
> Indeed the mirror was not updated correctly. Sorry for that.

PLEASE stop spamming me and the entire list, who you have CC'd to 
everyone personally. Jerk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204485 — Stop insulting users (was: Re: APT candidate does not match package on Debian repo)

Den 16. januar 2019 23:43:04 CET, skrev Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com>:
>On 1/16/19 5:04 AM, plataleas plataleas wrote:
>> Indeed the mirror was not updated correctly. Sorry for that.
>
>PLEASE stop spamming me and the entire list, who you have CC'd to 
>everyone personally. Jerk


Please get yourself removed from Debian lists instead of insulting users with legitimate threads, using false claims of misbehaviour.

formorer, please consider sending a warning to Ric Moore, or better, just remove them.

-nik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204515 — Re: Stop insulting users

On 1/17/19 3:29 AM, Dominik George wrote:
> Den 16. januar 2019 23:43:04 CET, skrev Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com>:
>> On 1/16/19 5:04 AM, plataleas plataleas wrote:
>>> Indeed the mirror was not updated correctly. Sorry for that.
>>
>> PLEASE stop spamming me and the entire list, who you have CC'd to
>> everyone personally. Jerk
> 
> 
> Please get yourself removed from Debian lists instead of insulting users with legitimate threads, using false claims of misbehaviour.
> 
> formorer, please consider sending a warning to Ric Moore, or better, just remove them.

The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a huge no 
no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't go for that and 
never have. Ric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204517 — Re: Stop insulting users

>The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a huge no 
>no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't go for that and 
>never have. Ric

I never saw a mail where they did that. Plonk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204520 — Re: Stop insulting users

On Friday 18 January 2019 13:20:59 Dominik George wrote:

> >The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a huge no
> >no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't go for that
> > and never have. Ric
+1 from another old timer.  And at 84 & as of last week part bionic, Ric 
is right as rain. 

> I never saw a mail where they did that. Plonk.

I got at least 4 such to me and to the list. If Ric hadn't beat me to it, 
I was about to write another procmail recipe.  Might yet if the OP that 
started this doesn't desist with spamming all the list members plus 
posting to the list.
 
it                                                                                                                                                     .

The guy may have had a legit question if one can read thru the haze of a 
language translator and make sense of it, the translator unfortunately 
did not leave any sense in the statements. So I never did figure out 
what the OP was wanting.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204522 — Re: Stop insulting users

On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 16:14:17 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote and misquoted Dominik George:
[…]
> > >The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a huge no
> > >no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't go for that
> > > and never have. Ric
> +1 from another old timer.  And at 84 & as of last week part bionic, Ric 
> is right as rain. 
> 
> > I never saw a mail where they did that. Plonk.
> 
> I got at least 4 such to me and to the list. If Ric hadn't beat me to it, 
> I was about to write another procmail recipe.  Might yet if the OP that 
> started this doesn't desist with spamming all the list members plus 
> posting to the list.

I haven't seen any spam from plataleas plataleas. By "spamming", do
you mean that you got individually addressed messages duplicating
their list postings, or something else entirely?

>  
> it                                                                                                                                                     .

Not sure what that empty line signifies.

> The guy may have had a legit question if one can read thru the haze of a 
> language translator and make sense of it, the translator unfortunately 
> did not leave any sense in the statements. So I never did figure out 
> what the OP was wanting.

I received messages on the topic given by the subject line, starting at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00636.html
concerning the availability of various kernel versions. They were
answered by Dominik George who eventually suggested that the OP
check whether their mirror was up to date, and that seemed to be
appropriate action. Suddenly Ric Moore chimed in with an accusation
of "spamming", under the same subject:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00714.html

I've already deleted all the substantive posts because I'm not that
deeply into package management, but the archives (starting at the
msg00636.html address) show the thread just as I saw it.
So I'm perplexed.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204523 — Re: Stop insulting users

On Friday 18 January 2019 17:20:33 David Wright wrote:

> On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 16:14:17 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote and
> misquoted Dominik George: […]
>
> > > >The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a
> > > > huge no no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't
> > > > go for that and never have. Ric
> >
> > +1 from another old timer.  And at 84 & as of last week part bionic,
> > Ric is right as rain.
> >
> > > I never saw a mail where they did that. Plonk.
> >
> > I got at least 4 such to me and to the list. If Ric hadn't beat me
> > to it, I was about to write another procmail recipe.  Might yet if
> > the OP that started this doesn't desist with spamming all the list
> > members plus posting to the list.
>
> I haven't seen any spam from plataleas plataleas. By "spamming", do
> you mean that you got individually addressed messages duplicating
> their list postings, or something else entirely?
Individually addressed to me, and identical to the posting. I use kmails 
dup del frequently, so theres a decent chance I don't have an example.
>
> Not sure what that empty line signifies.
>
> > The guy may have had a legit question if one can read thru the haze
> > of a language translator and make sense of it, the translator
> > unfortunately did not leave any sense in the statements. So I never
> > did figure out what the OP was wanting.
>
> I received messages on the topic given by the subject line, starting
> at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00636.html
> concerning the availability of various kernel versions. They were
> answered by Dominik George who eventually suggested that the OP
> check whether their mirror was up to date, and that seemed to be
> appropriate action. Suddenly Ric Moore chimed in with an accusation
> of "spamming", under the same subject:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00714.html
>
> I've already deleted all the substantive posts because I'm not that
> deeply into package management, but the archives (starting at the
> msg00636.html address) show the thread just as I saw it.
> So I'm perplexed.
>
> Cheers,
> David.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204525 — Re: Stop insulting users

On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 18:10:57 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 18 January 2019 17:20:33 David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 16:14:17 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote and
> > misquoted Dominik George: […]
> >
> > > > >The OP posted to each and every user PLUS the list. That is a
> > > > > huge no no. Consider yourself advised that us old timers don't
> > > > > go for that and never have. Ric
> > >
> > > +1 from another old timer.  And at 84 & as of last week part bionic,
> > > Ric is right as rain.
> > >
> > > > I never saw a mail where they did that. Plonk.
> > >
> > > I got at least 4 such to me and to the list. If Ric hadn't beat me
> > > to it, I was about to write another procmail recipe.  Might yet if
> > > the OP that started this doesn't desist with spamming all the list
> > > members plus posting to the list.
> >
> > I haven't seen any spam from plataleas plataleas. By "spamming", do
> > you mean that you got individually addressed messages duplicating
> > their list postings, or something else entirely?
> Individually addressed to me, and identical to the posting. I use kmails 
> dup del frequently, so theres a decent chance I don't have an example.

That's ok: as I said, they're in the web archive. If that's your only
complaint, I think the reaction was rather OTT.

But you might want to consult your "last rites" thread where
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/03/msg00236.html
contains a procmail that deduplicates incoming mail.

> > > The guy may have had a legit question if one can read thru the haze
> > > of a language translator and make sense of it, the translator
> > > unfortunately did not leave any sense in the statements. So I never
> > > did figure out what the OP was wanting.

If the postings in the web archive contain everything that you
received duplicates of, then I can't understand why you're
talking about a "language translator". The only sentence I can
see that one might criticise is:

"Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
package as stable?"

If there are native English speakers who can't understand that to mean
"Where is the information stored on the repository server specifying a
package as stable?", then they're the ones with problems.

> > I received messages on the topic given by the subject line, starting
> > at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00636.html
> > concerning the availability of various kernel versions. They were
> > answered by Dominik George who eventually suggested that the OP
> > check whether their mirror was up to date, and that seemed to be
> > appropriate action. Suddenly Ric Moore chimed in with an accusation
> > of "spamming", under the same subject:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00714.html
> >
> > I've already deleted all the substantive posts because I'm not that
> > deeply into package management, but the archives (starting at the
> > msg00636.html address) show the thread just as I saw it.
> > So I'm perplexed.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204471

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Nik

With rmadison we can see that 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not
yet „active“ in the stable
distribution:

$ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64

You specified that this information is stored in Packages.xz. However I
could find only 4.9.0-7 Kernel:

$ xzgrep linux-image  debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz |
grep Filename
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64-dbg_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-rt-amd64_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb

Did we miss something?

Thanks!
Martin

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:23 PM Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to extract this information from
> the
> > mirror server (CentOS based)?
> >
> > Where the information is stored on the repository server specifying a
> > package as stable?
>
> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz
>
> -nik
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204441

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 Hello

With rmadison we can see that 4.9.144 is available on the mirrors, but not
yet „active“ in the stable
distribution:

$ rmadison linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.130-2     | stable           | amd64
linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 | 4.9.144-1     | proposed-updates | amd64

Where the information is stored on the repository specifying a package as
stable?

In the file packages.xz we see only linux-image-4.9.0-7:

$ xzgrep linux-image  debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz |
grep Filename
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64-dbg_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-rt-amd64_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-7-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9.110-1_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u5_amd64.deb

Thanks!
Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204445

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello

The issue was, that our local mirror was not updated correctly. Now it
looks good:

$xzgrep linux-image  debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz |
grep Filename
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64-dbg_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-rt-amd64_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux/linux-image-4.9.0-8-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9.130-2_amd64.deb
Filename: pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u6_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u6_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64_4.9+80+deb9u6_amd64.deb
Filename:
pool/main/l/linux-latest/linux-image-rt-amd64-dbg_4.9+80+deb9u6_amd64.deb

Regards
Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web