Bug#1024852: nvidia-driver in bullseye (470.141.03-1~deb11u1) and bullseye-backports (470.103.01-1~bpo11+1) do not support Linux kernel 6.0 or later

[Alex Relis]

> So what is the proposal there?

The proposal is to include an updated nvidia-driver in backports so that 
it works with the backported Linux 6.0 kernel.

> Just do not install 6.0 kernel from backports if you need nvidia driver?

Well, what if there is a scenario where the user needed 6.0 and the 
newer nvidia-driver? But even still, the fact of the matter is that an 
unknowing user who has a backported kernel and nvidia-driver will update 
their packages and then lose their nvidia-driver. Luckily my friend had 
integrated graphics to fall back on, but if he had one of those AMD APUs 
without an iGPU he would be left with a system without graphics.

> Why are you
> a) filing a bug which is already fixed in Debian, and

Has the bug been fixed? I believe there is a misunderstanding. From what 
I can tell by previous bug reports for this package, the bug hasn't been 
fixed, is reproducible, and still happening. The Phoronix article is 
talking about a newer version of nvidia-driver that has not been 
packaged in bullseye or bullseye-backports (although newer versions are 
in bookworm and sid).

> b) why are you filing it against the bpo version of the package?

Because a) I don't know how to file the bug report for both versions 
other than submitting two bug reports, which seems redundant and b) 
because I'd imagine the backports team would have more leeway to update 
the package compared to the stable branch, and c) I'd imagine that if a 
user needs a newer kernel, they are also likely to have newer hardware 
as a whole which would necessitate a newer, backported nvidia-driver as 
well.

> It is a very questionable bug report, and for me as a maintainer
> (not of this package though) it discourages me from doing more
> backports (just a personal opinion/feeling).

I hope my bug report didn't dissuade you from contributing to Debian. At 
the same time, I am not seeing what's the problem as there is a 
dependency conflict and I am simply reporting that conflict so that the 
maintainers are aware of it. There is nothing personal about this. 
Ultimately I was just trying to help.

-- 
Alex Relis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-nvidia-devel/attachments/20221127/7da839a0/attachment.sig>