From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jambunathan K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: elpa.gnu.org (Stale archive-contents?) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:25:04 +0530 Message-ID: <8139r797on.fsf@gmail.com> References: <81vd48xive.fsf@gmail.com> <87tyjryhui.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <81fwvar0a4.fsf@gmail.com> <874obqza7f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bp5y6yhi.fsf@gnu.org> <87oc9yq63h.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wrolm88t.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87aalhayiv.fsf@altern.org> <87r5etkofc.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r5es3lqh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1289490988 30825 80.91.229.12 (11 Nov 2010 15:56:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bastien , Ted Zlatanov , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 11 16:56:23 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PGZVc-0002Zj-7D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:56:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35694 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGZVY-0007IS-73 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:56:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42869 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGZVO-00078j-4O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:56:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGZV4-0006Ct-BP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:55:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:39271) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGZV4-0006Cf-6w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:55:46 -0500 Original-Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so861380ywi.0 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:55:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:references :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=X7gJ489EYD2GnVcuGALZCGnw56pTgm8tugPn2I+pNRM=; b=JvL5qwXJQGKHcSXE4kETB7NoRAw4QXY0aFpzLxsO4vbaOTm2iR3OQepv8Pur9V7/0n RlLk52AyCYXu6imMFhEYHnAurcIHQEF3fNuNnu0rGiIIwAEUkakNEh6SYnVWCW/4ix8k 5KCEuewU0fg8KHoy3g6gywzIDc2ykXaZI68Tg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=joCiN722jcjg6niqTCgxMXNy+QZ+3XWtN6Qljp9X820uKMTklwRPPx7WXUrzYMHiCb /nvzQrtRm8pTic48qzY4h5veooJlk+bp+2QgZXBIx2t6jpSbtFUaew6repJ4Wb7WLgIu 88Fu+UkWLC2TDGJKIznF/96yBihFy5nfOG01M= Original-Received: by 10.42.165.70 with SMTP id j6mr1036046icy.155.1289490940839; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:55:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from JAMBU-NETBOOK ([115.184.50.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm2602014ibi.2.2010.11.11.07.55.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:55:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r5es3lqh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:35:50 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (windows-nt) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:132545 Archived-At: Still something is amiss wrt org tarball. archive-contents is holding on to Nov 1 while the org tar has moved on to Nov 11. What is so special about Nov 1. If I am not mistaken the state flips flops - right wrong right wrong ... Jambunathan K. Chong Yidong writes: > Ted Zlatanov writes: > >> B> But now I have two entries, one for 20101101 and one for 20101110. >> >> Yeah, I think it should have flushed the older package when elpa.gnu.org >> doesn't have it anymore. Installing that invalid package will fail in >> any case, but I think what you describe is a bug. > > This was a bug in package.el; I've just checked in a fix.