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

Bug#776823: tzdata-java 2015a-0wheezy1 missing in package lists

Package: tzdata-java
Version: 2014j-0wheezy1
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

it seems that the tzdata-java package in version 2015a-0wheezy1 is missing in
the package lists (eg. [1]), while the tzdata package is in there:

$ apt-cache policy tzdata-java
  Installed: 2014j-0wheezy1
  Candidate: 2014j-0wheezy1
  Version table:
 *** 2014j-0wheezy1 0
        500 http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
$ apt-cache policy tzdata
  Installed: 2014j-0wheezy1
  Candidate: 2015a-0wheezy1
  Version table:
     2015a-0wheezy1 0
        500 http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/debian/ wheezy-updates/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-updates/main amd64 Packages
 *** 2014j-0wheezy1 0
        500 http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

The package itself seems to be in the pool though [2].

I first noticed this problem at around 2015-02-02T04:01:50+01:00 (via
cron-apt), and still see it now at around 2015-02-02T08:41:00+01:00. The effect
of this is that upgrading tzdata (using dist-upgrade, otherwise, tzdata is kept
back) may result in the removal of various java-packages.

Best regards

[1] ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/wheezy-updates/main/binary-amd64/Packages.gz
[2] ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/tzdata/tzdata-java_2015a-0wheezy1_all.deb

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.8
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_CH.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_CH.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages tzdata-java depends on:
ii  tzdata  2014j-0wheezy1

tzdata-java recommends no packages.

tzdata-java suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Reply to: