On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:29:45AM +0200, Jordi Pujol Palomer wrote: > 2:0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1 not equal to 0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1 I happen to know which package that monster of a version number belongs to, so lets try it (but I could have picked any other package just as well as your script [after replacing %3a with : shows only matches for me]: $ apt-get -v | head -n1 apt 1.2.13 (amd64) $ apt-get download libx264-148 Get:1 http://ftp.stw-bonn.de/debian testing/main amd64 libx264-148 amd64 2:0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1 [611 kB] Fetched 611 kB in 2s (207 kB/s) $ ls -l libx264-148* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 610866 Jun 16 01:44 libx264-148_2%3a0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1_amd64.deb $ ls -l /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 612190 Mai 12 13:04 /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148_2%3a0.148.2668+gitfd2c324-1_amd64.deb # apt-get install libx264-148 [… apt busy installing things …] $ ls -l /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 612190 Mai 12 13:04 /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148_2%3a0.148.2668+gitfd2c324-1_amd64.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 610866 Jun 16 01:44 /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148_2%3a0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1_amd64.deb # apt-get autoclean [… busy deleting things …] $ ls -l /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 610866 Jun 16 01:44 /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148_2%3a0.148.2699+gita5e06b9-1_amd64.deb # apt-get clean $ ls -l /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148* zsh: no matches found: /var/cache/apt/archives/libx264-148* The mirror was choosen by httpredir.debian.org, repeating gives other mirrors, but the same result which isn't a surprise given that the filename is choosen independent on whatever the filename is on the mirror (and the filename can't really be different on mirrors, as they are indexed in the Packages file). I tried it specifically with 1.2.13 as your report says you use that version, no difference with git/master through (which I usually use). I don't know how I could look any closer at this, so you will have to be more specific – and you have to realize that if we find a bug in which apt is storing a package without an epoch which has one, the fix will be to store it with an epoch, not change all other places to not store it with an epoch. Is there perhaps some silly "download accelerator" like apt-fast involved? (Wich we STRONGLY advise against using!) Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature