users@linuxforums.org wrote:
apt-cache show fontconfigDisplays fontconfig version to be 2.2.2-1 [code:1:565f94e986]aptitude show ~Astable ~nfontconfig[/code:1:565f94e986] [code:1:565f94e986]aptitude show ~Aunstable ~nfontconfig[/code:1:565f94e986] [code:1:565f94e986]aptitude show ~Aexperimental ~nfontconfig[/code:1:565f94e986] All the above three display fontconfig version to be[b:565f94e986]2.2.2-2[/b:565f94e986].Does that mean fontconfig is version 2.2.2-2 in all distributions? Why the difference in version displayed by apt-cache and aptitude?
That's odd. It certainly may be an error in aptitude. fontconfig apparently does not exist in stable. Because joining the two search options as you have is supposed to AND the result of each, in the case of ~Astable, nothing should be returned.
Also, I'm not sure how to explain the difference in version number reported, although it may arise from the following situation reported by packages.debian.org:
Package fontconfig
* testing (utils): generic font configuration library
2.2.2-2: alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390
sparc
* unstable (utils): generic font configuration library
2.2.2-2: alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390
sparc
2.2.2-1: hurd-i386
fontconfig is still at version 2.2.2-1 on the hurd-i386 platform.
apt-cache must be reporting this version, while aptitude is reporting
the version for the remaining platforms.
These appear to be errors and inconsistencies in aptitude. I don't know what else to tell you. I was not aware of these before.
I will check the bug list for the package and report this if it has not been already.
dircha