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 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 to also consider the new name for a newer version of the package.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?".
Tixy said that because the bookworm-backports packages are called "linux-image-6.4.0…" which are all from a different kernel source. I would call linux-image-x.y.z-386 → linux-image-x.y.z-486 and suchlike a name change. > > > 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. Only because Greg wrote ‘What it said was "Hey, I looked on the internets and I saw this other kernel that might be newer than the one you're running, so maybe you wanna check this other kernel first and see if it's still got the same bug, before you report this."’ Cheers, David.
