Re: etch-backports strangeness
Roberto C. Sánchez schrieb am Tuesday, den 17. February 2009:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 09:21:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sánchez <email@example.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:
> 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?
No. Lintian has an exception requested by our ftp-masters and DSAs.