After installing the latest kpat, I am still prompted to install it.
This also applies to kfouleggs.

lakeland /usr/share/doc/bash # apt-get install kpat
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1  not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/259kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Reading changelogs...
(Reading database ... 173252 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace kpat 4:3.1.0+kl-1 (using
.../kpat_4%3a3.1.0+kl-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement kpat ...
Setting up kpat (3.1.0+kl-1) ...
lakeland /usr/share/doc/bash # apt-get install kpat
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1  not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/259kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Reading changelogs...
(Reading database ... 173252 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace kpat 4:3.1.0+kl-1 (using
.../kpat_4%3a3.1.0+kl-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement kpat ...
Setting up kpat (3.1.0+kl-1) ...

reassign 173257 apt
thanks

This definitely sounds like an apt bug -- there should be no way for a
package to make apt think it's perpetually out of date.

This sounds like the same apt bug that I commented on and sent a patch
for under #167899. To be sure, you can check (or paste here) the output
of "apt-cache policy kpat". If that shows multiple (at least three)
entries for kpat with an identical version string, and the one that you
have installed is not the first of those, then it's most probably the
same bug.

Unfortunately, Jason Gunthorpe, who seems to feel responsable for this
part of apt, tends not to acknowledge this as a bug ...

Regards,
Daniel

severity 173257 wishlist
tags 173257 wontfix
thanks

Same as #167899, which is archived.

I saw that, recently, bug reports about this behaviour have been
reported multiple times. After reading #167899 and #186671 that this has
never been considered a bug, but I don't know why.

I too ran into this behaviour, and I would appreciate if you could
explain (or direct me to some explanation, which I wasn't able to find)
why this is not considered a bug.

Kind thanks,
Danilo

Danilo Piazzalunga <danilopiazza@libero.it> writes:

If I remember correctly some years ago some package got fixed by
uploading the same version again and apt had to reinstall the same but
changed version again to get rid of the buggy package.

I think everybody agrees that that was a very bad thing to do but it
looks like support for this case is the cause for apt reinstalling a
package.


Now why does it happen again and again? From what I figured out the
reason why it does it over and over again is that the caching
algorithm does NOT support this reinstalling of the same but different
version. It happily gives apt the old cached version while apt wants
the new version downloaded. So apt wants the new deb, gets the old
deb, installs the old deb, and repeats.

If you run into this case or can reproduce it please do:

apt-get clean; apt-get upgrade; apt-get upgrade

Does the problem go away then? If so then you hit the same problem I
saw.

MfG
        Goswin

I haven't looked into this bug at all, but I found something in the
manpage of apt_preferences that could be related to this behavior:
       ·  If two or more versions have the same priority and version
	   number but either the packages differ in some of  their
	   meta- data or the --reinstall option is given, install the
	   uninstalled one.

IMHO this means that if you somehow got two different packages with
the same name and version number into your cache you will see
a similar behavior as described in the bug reports.

Again, I don't know if that has anything to do with the problem
described in the bug reports (other then resulting in the same
symptoms), as I haven't had time to have a closer look at the
problem.

Cheers,
Christian

No, it's not the same problem. Cleaning the cache doesn't help, apt-cache
policy shows that APT still thinks that the /var/lib/dpkg/status version is
different from the one available at the repository I installed that package
from.

Regards,
Danilo

Sehr geehrter Kunde,

Ihr Kreditinstitut hat die Lastschrift zurück gebucht. Sie haben eine nicht gedeckte Rechnung beim Unternehmen Mail & Media GmbH.

Aufgrund des bestehenden Zahlungsrückstands sind Sie gebunden außerdem, die durch unsere Tätigkeit entstandenen Gebühren von 55,69 Euro zu tragen. Wir erwarten die Überweisung zuzüglich der Gebühren bis zum 24.03.2015 auf unser Girokonto. Namens unseren Mandanten ordnen wir Ihnen an, die noch offene Gesamtforderung schnellstens zu begleichen.

Bitte beachten Sie, dass keine weitere Mahnung erfolgt. Nach Ablauf der Frist wird die Angelegenheit dem Gericht und der Schufa übergeben. Die detaillierte Kostenaufstellung, der Sie alle Buchungen entnehmen können, ist beigefügt. Für Fragen oder Reklamationen erwarten wir eine Kontaktaufnahme innerhalb des gleichen Zeitraums.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Inkasso Abteilung Breugel Dominic