Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.4-4
Severity: normal

I have a bunch of packages which aptitude upgrade everytime wants to upgrade
but which are really at the correct version. apt-cache policy shows, that
the packages have the correct versions but don't get recognised to come 
from the stable distribution.

purging the package with different methods, emptying the cache and 
reinstalling the package from the archive does not help.

yoda:~# apt-cache policy time
time:
  Installed: 1.7-21
  Candidate: 1.7-21
  Version table:
     1.7-23 0
         70 http://ftp.de.debian.org testing/main Packages
         50 http://ftp.de.debian.org unstable/main Packages
     1.7-21 0
        500 http://ftp.de.debian.org oldstable/main Packages
     1.7-21 0
        900 http://ftp.de.debian.org stable/main Packages
 *** 1.7-21 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Why is aptitude not recognising the correct archive version?
How can I fix this wrong status?

Christoph

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (900, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (70, 'testing'), (50, 
'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-amd64
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii  apt [libapt-pkg-libc6. 0.6.46.4-0.1      Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii  libc6                  2.3.6.ds1-13etch7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libgcc1                1:4.1.1-21        GCC support library
ii  libncursesw5           5.5-5             Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libsigc++-2.0-0c2a     2.0.17-2          type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii  libstdc++6             4.1.1-21          The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
pn  aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-do <none>     (no description available)
pn  libparse-debianchangelog-perl <none>     (no description available)

-- no debconf information



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to