On Sun 28 Mar 2021 at 19:46:07 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > > By the way, what is image-5.10.0-0.bpo.4* serie for?Is it only related to > "Change ABI number to 0.bpo.4"? Do I need that?
I guess you have to read the changes file to find that out. https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports-changes/2021/03/msg00053.html might be of use here. > 23 mars 2021, 17:45 de deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: > > > But the OP is, perhaps, relying on the upgrade mechanism provided by > > the linux-image-amd64 metapackage. However, that's supporting only > > the signed versions, and buster-backports doesn't (yet) have any > > 5.10.19 signed versions: > > > So you think that's the correct answer (no update because the package is not > ready yet)? > > If so, I'll simply wait for it. I just wanted to make sure my conf is OK (and > obviously it wasn't configured in such a way to get the latest kernel > versions from backports)... That would depend on there being one. On Mon 29 Mar 2021 at 01:09:25 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > 22 mars 2021, 01:12 de wea...@riseup.net: > > > You may be looking at the unsigned version and may have to wait 24 hours > > for the signed one to come through the repositories, if that's what you > > are running. > > > Thanks for your message but 24 hours don't seem to be enough here... > > Maybe there are some issues experienced by the maintainer? > Is there an easy way to see that? > > With what everyone says so far, I have the feeling that 5.10.19-1~bpo10+1 is > indicated as available via backports but not for every flavours. Everybody is > not in the same boat ;) > > I have no problem with that but maybe this subtlety could be stated more > explicitely somewhere? Just a suggestion so one doesn't have to dig too much > to understand that... Perhaps it's worth subscribing to debian-backports-changes and debian-backports. You can post to the latter. Cheers, David.
