On Mi, 31 mar 21, 22:54:59, l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > Hi, > > 30 mars 2021, 08:16 de andreimpope...@gmail.com: > > > $ rmadison linux-signed-amd64 > > linux-signed-amd64 | 4.19.118+2+deb10u1~bpo9+1 | stretch-backports | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 4.19.171+2 | stable | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 4.19.181+1 | stable | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 5.9.15+1~bpo10+1 | buster-backports | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 5.10.13+1~bpo10+1 | buster-backports | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 5.10.19+1~bpo10+1 | backports-policy | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 5.10.24+1 | testing | source > > linux-signed-amd64 | 5.10.24+1 | unstable | source > > > Is linux-signed-amd64 the source of linux-image-amd64?
apt show linux-image-amd64
> I suppose there are some constraints here but it would be (apparently)
> easier if the names were matching ^^
Using different source packages very likely involves more work for the
maintainers, so it was probably necessary.
The process to create signed kernel images is "documented" somewhere
(possibly just mailing list post), so a web search should find it.
> If I follow you, we have more information by inquiring about the
> source package than the binary one?
It's easier to track source packages if the binary package name changes
often.
> > The packages appears to be stuck in the backports-policy. If I recall
> > correctly (see recent -backports archives) this is related to the
> > freeze.
> >
> Very interesting. You have certainly something here...
>
> But if true, why
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports-changes/2021/03/msg00053.htmlÂ
> mentions
> "Accepted linux 5.10.19-1~bpo10+1 (source) into
> buster-backports->backports-policy, buster-backports" if it's just in
> backports-policy?
It says 'linux', which is the source package for the -unsigned images,
as discussed above.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
