[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 20:25 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > 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?
> You'll find that the kernel maintainers *are* using that version number 
> scheme:
> $ apt-cache policy linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae:
>   Installed: 3.2.18-1~bpo60+1
>   Candidate: 3.2.18-1~bpo60+1
>   Version table:
>  *** 3.2.18-1~bpo60+1 0
>         100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-
> backports/main i386 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> Your lesson in Debian version string comparison, while correct, doesn't 
> actually answer the question asked.
> Kernel packages also carry information in their package name, which is what 
> the original poster was asking about. In particular, the maintainers have an 
> ABI string that helps track breakage of locally compiled out-of-tree 
> modules.
> 	http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelABIChanges
> So sid current has kernel packages with names like:
> 	linux-image-3.2.0-2-686-pae
> where "2" is the ABI number; this package has a version string of 
> "3.2.19-1". On the other hand, squeeze-backports kernel shown above has an 
> ABI of "0.bpo.2". I guess it's important to be able to identify backports 
> kernels easily and to track this as a backports ABI but yes, it does make 
> for a long and overly complex package name (not package version).

The kernel ABI is potentially different in the backport due to use of a
different compiler version.  Previously the ABI version string would be
<n>.bpo, where <n> was the ABI version used in testing/unstable.
However, that sorts higher according to GRUB and the linux-version
command, which was undesirable.  Therefore I've been using 0.bpo.<n>


Ben Hutchings
It is easier to write an incorrect program than to understand a correct one.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: