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 +0000, Tixy wrote: > > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 18:15 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: [...] > > > > But the bookworm-backports kernel is even newer. > > > > So why not this one? > > > > > > Because it's a different package? [...] > I just downloaded > /debian/dists/bullseye-backports/main/binary-amd64/Packages.xz > (2023-11-02 13:59 395K), and it contains: [...] > so there do appear to be 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 candidates, like > linux-image-6.1.0-0.deb11.13-amd64-unsigned.
Note that these 6.1.55-1~bpo11+1 candidates do not match my binary package. So, if these were the reason of the output, then the answer to "Because it's a different package?" above would be "No". -- 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 / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
