On Mon 20 Nov 2023 at 11:12:03 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 23:43:34 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release se
On 2023-11-18 23:43:34 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> > > kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section
On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:24:25 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 00:20:25 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 13:30:32 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-16 14:04:29 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > > On Thu 16 Nov 2023 at 13:02:28 (+0100), Vincent Lefev
On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 23:33:59 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> > kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section should come from the
> > same upstream series (6.1.x), and
On Sat 18 Nov 2023 at 15:29:51 (+0100), steve wrote:
> Le 18-11-2023, à 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> > > > At time of writing, that depended on package in stable
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
(= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of date.
The following newer release(s) are available in the
On 2023-11-18 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> The "6.1.0-" part comes from the upstream release series. All the
> kernel images containing "6.1.0-" in this section should come from the
> same upstream series (6.1.x), and should have basically the same feature
> set, with no major changes.
On 2023-11-18 00:20:25 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 13:30:32 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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 particula
Thanks Greg for the precise explanation. I would suggest to put it in the
Debian Wiki for futur reference.
Le 18-11-2023, à 09:18:56 -0500, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> At time of wri
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:24:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> > At time of writing, that depended on package in stable is called
> > 'linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64' and the version of that package is
> > '6.1.55-1'. This is the kernel installed o
On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 14:07:54 (+), Tixy wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 14:04 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > 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 wro
On Fri 17 Nov 2023 at 13:30:32 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 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 backport
On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 14:04 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> 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 +, Tixy wrote:
> > >
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 ne
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 +, Tixy wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +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 +, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
[...]
> > > > But the bookworm-backports kernel is even newer.
> > > > So
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 +, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -, Curt wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-11-14,
On Wed 15 Nov 2023 at 20:01:20 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-15 18:06:45 +, Tixy wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -, Curt wrote:
> > > > On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The base numbe
On 2023-11-15 18:06:45 +, Tixy wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -, Curt wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this other
> > > > kernel migh
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -, Curt wrote:
> > On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >
> > > The base number is the same, but I would have thought that this other
> > > kernel might have additional patches.
> > >
> > > > That's why I
On 2023-11-15 16:39:15 -, Curt wrote:
> On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre 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 th
On 2023-11-15 08:50:50 +0100, didier gaumet wrote:
> I don't know why particularly a Bullseye-backports kernel is promoted here
> in a mixed stable/unstable context but perhaps (I have not tested it) you
> could set check-available to 0 in /etc/reportbug.conf (1) to avoid to be
> proposed a newer k
On 2023-11-15 10:15:35 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 15/11/2023 05:01, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > # $ wget -qO-
> > > > 'https://qa.debian.org/madison.php?package=emacs&text=on&s=oldstable,stable,testing,unstable,exper
On 2023-11-14, Vincent Lefevre 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 n
Le 14/11/2023 à 23:01, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
[...]
Then why does reportbug mention the bullseye-backports kernel?
[...]
Hello,
I don't know why particularly a Bullseye-backports kernel is promoted
here in a mixed stable/unstable context but perhaps (I have not tested
it) you could set ch
On 15/11/2023 05:01, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
# $ wget -qO-
'https://qa.debian.org/madison.php?package=emacs&text=on&s=oldstable,stable,testing,unstable,experimental&a=source,all,x86_64'
The same request without s=... returns
On 2023-11-14 16:34:18 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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
> > > > (=
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 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:
> >
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?
N
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?
apt policy
apt policy linux-image-amd64
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
> (= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
>
> Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of
> date.
> The following newer
To my surprise, reportbug asks me to use bullseye-backports
(= oldstable-backports) on my bookworm (= stable) machine:
Your version (6.1.55-1) of linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 appears to be out of date.
The following newer release(s) are available in the Debian archive:
bullseye-backports (backport
32 matches
Mail list logo
