Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm?

From	Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Why is bullseye-backports recommended on bookworm?
Date	2023-11-17 13:40 +0100
Message-ID	<HB6iB-63Gx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <HAsuR-5Fac-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAtqV-5FHH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAudj-5FWU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAJm1-5PdD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <HAQQx-5UpG-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 2023-11-16 14:04:29 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 16 Nov 2023 at 13:02:28 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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 to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.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.

The name of the binary package frequently changes. This is why Tixy
said "Because it's a different package?".

> > 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.

I'm wondering why you think that. Earlier in this thread:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2023-11-14 23:54:31 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 14/11/2023 19:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
> > (= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
>
> Might it happen that you have bullseye-backports in apt sources.list?

No, and this is actually the complaint of reportbug, which wants
me to add it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my bug report (bug 1055931), Nis Martensen found where
6.1.55+1~bpo11+1 came from. As a summary from

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055931#34

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2023-11-16 17:31:13 +0100, Nis Martensen wrote:
> I can find "6.1.55+1~bpo11+1" in https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.822
> so it must come from there.

Thanks. I had first looked at

  https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

(as output by reportbug), and it doesn't appear on this page
(I searched for both "linux" and "6.1.55"). Note that clicking
on "Click to toggle all/binary-NEW packages" does not make this
kernel appear either.

FYI, I later looked at https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.822 too
(as I could see it in the strace output), but only searched for
linux-image there, explaining that I didn't find it either (it
actually appears as linux-signed-amd64).

At the bottom of the new.html page:
"You can also look at the RFC822 version."

But why are the contents different? (linux-signed-amd64 appears
only in the RFC822 version.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
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)

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