On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 09:21:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0000, Nick Leverton wrote:
>
> >> This sounds like an apt-key issue. I don't recall exact details but I
> >> think I have experienced in the past that apt ignores pinning when the
> >> key is not correct.
>
> > Oddly, the problem appears to have resolved itself overnight. The only
> > strange thing remaining is that lintian wants to 2.2.something, which I
> > don't recall being released with Lenny.
>
> It wasn't, so that's odd.
>
Somehow, it ended up in etch-backports:
lintian:
Installed: 1.24.0~bpo40+1
Candidate: 2.2.0~bpo40+1
Version table:
2.2.0~bpo40+1 0
200 http://apt-proxy.connexer.com etch-backports/main Packages
*** 1.24.0~bpo40+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.23.28 0
500 http://apt-proxy.connexer.com etch/main Packages
Does it need to be removed by the bpo archive maintainers?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature