Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> 2009/1/19 Eugene V. Lyubimkin <jackyf.devel@gmail.com>:
>> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>>> What I'm wondering about is this: why doesn't he have a candidate
>>> version for libjack0? He's running a testing system and has two
>>> perfectly good available versions, including the installed version.
>>> Shouldn't apt at least pick the installed version as the candidate?
>> I think it definitely should. However I cannot reproduce the problem in my
>> unstable system, so a new bug report with the attached dpkg status file would
>> be helpful for anyone who will try to fix this problem.
>
> As I already wrote, you should be able to reproduce this by setting the pin to
> a non-existing release. And it only happens when the priority is >=1000.
^^^^^^
This is most useful info. Thanks for clarifying.
Anyway, a bug report to BTS is encouraged to not forget about this strange
issue. Should I write it myself or whoever other wants?
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
Ukrainian C++ Developer, Debian Maintainer, APT contributor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature