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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #263606

Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm?

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu 16 Nov 2023 at 13:02:28 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 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 to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.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.

As I said above, I don't know whether they apply any fuzziness to the
version numbers in view of the multiplicity of linux-image versions
(and sources). As far as a 'rename' is concerned, I don't think that
linux-image has changed name since it was kernel-image in sarge.

> > > 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.

I didn't know that, and at least one post in this thread suggests otherwise.

> > 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 "+").

Yes, and I assumed that might be because sources are being looked up
as well as binaries. Looking at the list I posted, the top half has
the Sources (src) specified as plain "linux". The bottom half is more
forthcoming, with versions in parentheses. I can only assume that
these are source versions and that's the reason for their + signs.

But this is way deeper than I have plumbed in version numbering.
I used to compile custom kernels when the hardware was much simpler,
but my versioning was always protected by a nice big Epoch.

Cheers,
David.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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