Re: etch-backports strangeness

[Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org>]

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 <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?
No. Lintian has an exception requested by our ftp-masters and DSAs.

alex