Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as "older" than version 1:1.1.13-0.0

[James]

Fabian, thanks for clearing-up the problem - actually very helpful!

> You didn't just write that to Reinhard and still expect anyone to help 
> you get your screwed-up package dependencies right, he?

Maybe...

> Let me give you a similar advice: You shouldn't fuck up your package 
> dependency chain by installing unofficial packages from third-party 
> repositories if you don't know what you are doing!

Ha!  Good advice.

>> Get: 3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ wheezy/main vlc i386 1:1.1.13-0.0 [1,392 kB]

> Does this look like a Debian mirror to you?

Actually, yes it does.  Remember - I don't know any better.  It is mostly the
word "debian" in the domain name that throws me off the path.

And then, after installing 2.0.0-1, "dpkg -p vlc" shows:

	Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers
	<pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>

Attempting to "divine" the underlying distinction between "Debian Multimedia"
and "debian-multimedia", I came-up none the wiser.  Nor does the package
description seem to offer any deeper insight.

And, you know, at http://www.debian.org/trademark,

	... the Debian trademark is a registed United States trademark of
	Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

and, at
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1998/msg00006.html

	To be fair to all businesses, we insist that no business use the name
	"Debian" in the name of the business, or a domain name of the
	business.

So, yeah, using the name "debian", instead of "Debian" in the domain name
probably threw me off a bit too.

> The 1:1.1.3-0.0 version on d-m.o has an epoch "1:" added to its 
> version number that makes it always appear higher than the 2.0.0-1 one 
> from the official Debian repository. That's the solution, no personal 
> insult required.

Aha!

Hmm - but that still leaves me - naively, perhaps - expecting that the
"epoch 1:" should not do that, or rather, that the package managers - synaptic,
aptitude, and apt-get - should not do that.

Of course, whoever it is who actually created "1:1.1.13-0.0" isn't helping
things any - still not providing a "version 2" package, some guy with a
"debian.org" email address, who, as you say, is not actually the maintainer of
the official "debian" package - not to be confused with the "Debian Multimedia
Maintainers" who _are_ the official maintainers, but who don't have anything
to do with those other guys at "debian-multimedia".

I find the package documentation to be still a bit confusing...


James