On Tue, 05 Jun 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:18 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 06/05/2012 09:50 PM, SANCHEZ Jeremy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have a question about a kernel backports, I want to install them on my > > > company's server... But I have a choice between bpo1 and bpo2. > > > I have check, and I see no difference except the kernel version... > > > But I see about the updates, it's more frequent for the bpo2..... > > > > > > Does someone can me explain the difference please? > > > > > > I think bpo2 is updated for integrate new or recent firmware or other, > > > but It's possible I'm wrong....:s > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > There's a very important difference. Number 2 is bigger than number 1. > > It might be stupid, but that's the answer to what you are looking for! > > In other words: bpo.2 is the latest version. > [...] > > Here, the kernel maintainers decided to use 0.bpo.1 instead of ~bpo60+1, > > but that's the same idea: 3.2.0-0.<something> will be lower than 3.2.0-2 > > (which is what we have in SID / testing at the moment). > > > > By the way, could kernel developers switch to the more standard system? > > Why isn't the kernel backport using 3.2.0-2~bpo60+2 as version number? > > This case is a little different - it's a Debian-specific ABI version > within the package *name* (similar to putting a library soversion in its > package name). > > But the answer is still that the lower numbered one should not be used. > I think I need to ask bpo ftpmasters to remove it (decruft). done. Alex
Attachment:
pgptZGHn2QqQM.pgp
Description: PGP signature