On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 03:00:46AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I think there's a problem here in (the archive|the kernel packaging), >as far as I can see. Look at > > https://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/linux-signed-amd64 > >and you'll see that right now the linux-signed-amd64 (6.12.3+1) source >package claims to build modules for all of the following kernel >ABIs. Picking crypto-dm-modules-* as an example: > > * crypto-modules-6.10.9-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.10.9-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.10.11-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.10.11-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.10.12-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.10.12-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.2-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.2-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.4-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.4-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.5-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.5-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.6-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.6-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.7-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.7-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.9-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.9-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.10-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.11.10-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.12.3-amd64-di > * crypto-modules-6.12.3-amd64-di > >debian-cd just pulls in all the modules in a release, expecting that >to be a sensible set. WTH is happening here?
Looking in the source package for linux-signed-amd64, I don't see anything obviously wrong there. Any clues? :-( -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb." -- Steven M. Haflich
