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: > > > > 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.
That is NOT what it said, at all. 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." But it's NOT actually newer than yours. It's the same as yours. It just has a bigger, fancier version string because it's a backport. So it kinda looks newer if you are a not very bright software construct. That's why I suggested ignoring the message. > > apt policy linux-image-amd64 > > linux-image-amd64: > Installed: 6.1.55-1 > Candidate: 6.1.55-1 > Version table: > 6.5.10-1 500 > 500 https://ftp.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages > 500 https://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages > *** 6.1.55-1 900 > 900 https://ftp.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > 6.1.52-1 900 > 900 https://security.debian.org/debian-security stable-security/main > amd64 Packages You are not running a "bookworm (= stable)" system. You're running unstable. This doesn't change my analysis, but it's something you should be aware of. When you mix binary repositories of unstable, testing and bookworm, you are by definition running unstable. "But pinning!" Nope. It's an unstable system, no matter how many hoops you jump through trying to control the frankendebian.
