But last time this happened because the package was uploaded incorrectly to the partner component of the primary archive, but that is not the case this time:
Nonetheless, we do seem to have a corrupt cache again, although I'm not sure in this case where the duplicate record has come from. As outlined on bug 536641, we should: "2. Ensure DistroSeries.updatePackageCache() doesn't create a new cache item for a distro archive if one already exists in another distro archive," to ensure this situation can't happen again.
It certainly looks like the same issue with a new version of java in Lucid:
https:/ /edge.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ sun-java6/ 6.20dlj- 1ubuntu3/ +build/ 1704548
But last time this happened because the package was uploaded incorrectly to the partner component of the primary archive, but that is not the case this time:
https:/ /pastebin. canonical. com/32299/
Nonetheless, we do seem to have a corrupt cache again, although I'm not sure in this case where the duplicate record has come from. As outlined on bug 536641, we should: "2. Ensure DistroSeries. updatePackageCa che() doesn't create a new cache item for a distro archive if one already exists in another distro archive," to ensure this situation can't happen again.