On 2025-03-02 20:55:29 +0100, Antoine wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:06:06 +0100 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> > wrote: > > BTW, like Raphaël, I think I also saw the same issue on the linux and > > gcc-defaults source packages (but not always).
Note that in my case, I always upgrade all the packages of the same source at the same time. > Hi, just for information and ready to provide some more if needed, > (I have a apt-listchanges-snapshots_2025-03-02T18:21:06.tar.xz) > I am reproducing the issue systematically when upgrading kernel, > 'linux-headers-amd64' in my case; > but not having the issue with 'linux-libc-dev' linux-libc-dev can be upgraded alone (well, without the kernel upgrade), while upgrading linux-headers-amd64 generally installs a new package, which might confuse apt-listchanges (though there may be another explanation, see below). For instance... > Pkgs: > ----- > libc-bin 2.41-2 2.41-3 > libc-dev-bin 2.41-2 2.41-3 > libc-l10n 2.41-2 2.41-3 > libc6 2.41-2 2.41-3 > libc6-dbg 2.41-2 2.41-3 > libc6-dev 2.41-2 2.41-3 > locales 2.41-2 2.41-3 > linux-headers-amd64 6.12.16-1 6.12.17-1 > linux-image-amd64 6.12.16-1 6.12.17-1 > linux-libc-dev 6.12.16-1 6.12.17-1 linux-headers-amd64 6.12.16-1 depends on linux-headers-6.12.16-amd64 while linux-headers-amd64 6.12.17-1 depends on linux-headers-6.12.17-amd64. So the new package linux-headers-6.12.17-amd64 has been installed. But a more probable cause would actually be linux-image-amd64, possibly due to the linux-signed-amd64 source. -- 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 / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
