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 <vinc...@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. > 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: $ zgrep -A3 '^Package: linux-image' Packages.xz | paste - - - - - | sed 's/Package: //;s/\tSource:/ src/;s/\tVersion:/ ver/;s/\tInstalled-Size:/ isize/;s/\t--//' linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 6336657 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 499959 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-cloud-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 2051897 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-cloud-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 145318 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-rt-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 6404909 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-rt-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 518751 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 6340686 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 499954 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-cloud-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 2051852 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-cloud-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 145473 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-rt-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 6409844 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-rt-amd64-unsigned src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 518558 linux-image-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 13 linux-image-amd64-signed-template src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 3884 linux-image-cloud-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 13 linux-image-rt-amd64-dbg src linux ver 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 isize 13 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 501754 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-cloud-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 145823 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.11-rt-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 520577 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.9-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.27+1~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.27-1~bpo11+1 isize 501563 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.9-cloud-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.27+1~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.27-1~bpo11+1 isize 145610 linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.9-rt-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.27+1~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.27-1~bpo11+1 isize 520274 linux-image-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 13 linux-image-cloud-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 13 linux-image-rt-amd64 src linux-signed-amd64 (6.1.38+4~bpo11+1) ver 6.1.38-4~bpo11+1 isize 13 $ so there do appear to be 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 candidates, like linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-amd64-unsigned. 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. Cheers, David.
