On 2010-06-24, Jordan Metzmeier <titan8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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... >
Both packages were updated in the last Lenny update[1], at which time they 'leap-frogged' the versions in volatile. Nothing to worry about. [1] http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20100130 -- Liam O'Toole Cork, Ireland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrni2738i.56n.liam.p.oto...@dipsy.selfip.org