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

Stable volatile versions



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


Last night I was attempting to install spamassassin on my Lenny box. I
had some difficulty doing so because it turned out that the volatile
version had a lesser version number.

The only ways I found to get the volatile version to install was to pin
the volatile repo to > 1000. I then found that this is the same case
with tzdata. Here are examples:

tzdata:
  Installed: 2010a-0lenny1
  Candidate: 2009l-0lenny1.1
  Version table:
 *** 2010a-0lenny1 0
        500 http://ftp.grokthis.net lenny/main Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     2009l-0lenny1.1 0
       1001 http://volatile.debian.org lenny/volatile/main Packages

spamassassin:
  Installed: 3.2.5-2+lenny1.1~volatile1
  Candidate: 3.2.5-2+lenny1.1~volatile1
  Version table:
     3.3.1-1~bpo50+1 0
          1 http://ftp.backports.org lenny-backports/main Packages
     3.2.5-2+lenny2 0
        500 http://ftp.grokthis.net lenny/main Packages
 *** 3.2.5-2+lenny1.1~volatile1 0
       1001 http://volatile.debian.org lenny/volatile/main Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status



Why are volatile versions made in a way so that using them is a
"downgrade"? Is it possible that a Lenny point-release has obsoleted a
volatile version of a package?

Something just did not seem right about this...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=9mZV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: