On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 09:21:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> writes: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0000, Nick Leverton wrote: > > >> This sounds like an apt-key issue. I don't recall exact details but I > >> think I have experienced in the past that apt ignores pinning when the > >> key is not correct. > > > Oddly, the problem appears to have resolved itself overnight. The only > > strange thing remaining is that lintian wants to 2.2.something, which I > > don't recall being released with Lenny. > > It wasn't, so that's odd. > Somehow, it ended up in etch-backports: lintian: Installed: 1.24.0~bpo40+1 Candidate: 2.2.0~bpo40+1 Version table: 2.2.0~bpo40+1 0 200 http://apt-proxy.connexer.com etch-backports/main Packages *** 1.24.0~bpo40+1 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.23.28 0 500 http://apt-proxy.connexer.com etch/main Packages Does it need to be removed by the bpo archive maintainers? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature