Brian wrote: >On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : >> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> > > >> > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: standard >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: optional >> > > >> > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. >> >> Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. >> >> > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package >> > maintainer matter. >> >> Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ? > >Pass. > >wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 Installed-Size: 6104 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: optional Filename: pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1_amd64.deb Size: 1562454 MD5sum: ba99d07da2382c1861533e4a55ebe6f8 SHA256: b4032390b6e0347863558015f2c5dfff19af61145d745351c30be66932d2a9c2 And from stable-security: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 Installed-Size: 6108 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: standard Filename: pool/updates/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_amd64.deb Size: 1564182 MD5sum: aa2aa9266ed488bc57e486497dcde2b0 SHA1: 4dac8ed3ec8dd50de65ff3cb07eef1963d3e96c0 SHA256: 749a070599b56c923c514cd7b9fab6f94b01c662a9c5c93182366f81990f4d87 which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at directly to check... I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
