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 to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.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 <vinc...@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)
