Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #224970 > unrolled thread

Slic3r --gui won't run

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 14:10 +0200
    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 14:20 +0200
      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 15:50 +0200
        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 16:00 +0200
          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 16:30 +0200
            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 16:40 +0200
              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2020-07-19 17:40 +0200
                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 17:40 +0200
              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 18:20 +0200
                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 18:40 +0200
                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 19:10 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 19:20 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:10 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 12:50 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 19:20 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 19:30 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 19:40 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:30 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 20:30 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:50 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-19 21:40 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:30 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-19 20:30 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-19 20:40 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:50 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 13:20 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 13:00 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-20 16:20 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 18:30 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 19:10 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 19:10 +0200
                              Re: Debian and Raspberry Pi4 (was:  Slic3r --gui won't run). Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-20 19:50 +0200
                                Re: Debian and Raspberry Pi4 (was: Slic3r --gui won't run). Andrew Cater <amacater@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 23:40 +0200
                              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 20:00 +0200
                                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 08:50 +0200
                                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-21 09:10 +0200
                                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-21 13:50 +0200
                                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-21 15:00 +0200
                                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-23 08:10 +0200
                                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2020-07-24 13:00 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-21 21:00 +0200
          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 18:00 +0200
            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 18:10 +0200
              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 18:50 +0200
                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 19:40 +0200
                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-19 20:40 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 07:00 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 11:00 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 17:10 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-20 17:20 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 19:40 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-20 19:50 +0200
                              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 20:40 +0200
                                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-20 22:20 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 20:40 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 13:30 +0200
                        Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 17:40 +0200
                          Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-20 17:50 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 18:00 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-20 19:50 +0200
                              Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 08:50 +0200
                                Re: Slic3r --gui won't run rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-21 20:50 +0200
                                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-23 08:20 +0200
                            Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-20 19:50 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 13:20 +0200
                  Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-20 15:10 +0200
                    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 19:00 +0200
                      Re: Slic3r --gui won't run David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 19:30 +0200
    Re: Slic3r --gui won't run mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 21:40 +0200

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#225110

On Monday, July 20, 2020 10:11:40 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2020 06:58:10 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > "the latest candidate version" would be more accurate. If you think this
> > wording is an improvement feel free to file a wishlist bugs against
> > 'apt' (the package).
> 
> Thanks -- I'll probably let that percolate in my head for a little while
> before I file a bug -- it's probably good wording, but there is no need to
> jump to a conclusion -- maybe we (collectively) will come up with
> something better or recognize this as the best choice.

...

> Thanks!  (But, nothing shows up there as pinned -- I probably have a lot
> more to learn here, but, as my current problem is solved, may not dig into
> it.)

Darn. I shouldn't have said that -- I seem to be going down the rabbit hole 
;-(

I've decided to think further about a possible bug report, and the following 
is sort of a first draft / thinking out loud approach to the subject (with some 
false starts along the way.  I had a headache when I wrote this, I'm trying to 
dress it up a little, but not sure how well I'll do.

I see it in two parts (as you read on) -- first establishing the possible 
situations reflected by the existing message, and then some brainstorming on 
possible changes to the message.

The messages is like this:

= <e.g.>
Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be 
installed
=

There can be 2 (or 3?) cases when that message appears:

   * the bpo9 (to use some improvised shorthand) version is to be installed, 
but would not satisfy the dependency for the package you've asked apt-get (or 
similar) to install (can this be the case? -- this is not the case I 
encountered, and I'm not 100% sure it can occur -- more discussion somewhere 
below)

   * the bpo9 version is already installed, but does not satisfy the 
dependency for the package you've asked apt-get (or similar) to install (this 
is the case I encountered (for openssh-server on Wheezy))

   * is there another case?

So, I don't like the wording as is (I mean, it took me (and, apparently, Gene) 
too much effort to understand it).  

I'm not sure I like calling it a candidate, either, especially if it is 
already installed.  

And, if the only case is the one where it has already been installed (I bring 
this up because the 2nd is the only case that I've encountered (iirc)), then 
wording more like might be more helpful:

Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) is required, but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is installed

Hmm, maybe the first case can come up when the non-bpo9 version is already a 
dependency for some other package, and removing it to install the bp09 would 
break that other package (not the one that apt-get is attempting to install)?

But for that case, wording like this might be better:

Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) is required for <the package apt-
get is attempting to install>, but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is installed (required) 
for <other package(s)>

<other package(s)> might display the list of other packages, or just say 
"other packages" (as long as there is a tool to easily discover those other 
packages, which I believe there is, but I can't instantly recite the tool / 
command).

Or, somewhat combinging the two cases (that I've discussed so far) -- for 
either case (note the optional part (in square brackets)):

Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) is required for <the package apt-
get is attempting to install>, but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is installed [for 
<other package(s)>]

An alternate wording to consider if the current installed version (the bpo9) 
version could be " ... is an orphan"  (Even though, in a way, iiuc, that 
should not occur -- I mean, iiuc, if a package is not required, running apt-
get -autoremove will remove such packages.  

Hmm, I guess add  a caveat / question -- if a package has been installed as a 
dependency for an application / program installed by the user by means other 
than the debian packaging system, I don't think that apt[-get] will recognize 
it as a dependency?

As another comment, now that I understand the message, it isn't as hard to 
understand, but what about the next newbie to that message?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224981

On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
>
> Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> package.
>
> Reco
>
> [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl

I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like, made it 
so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not a 
perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of slic3r 
or slic34-prussa, why did it not complain when I installed slic3r a 
couple weeks back?  I'll remove it and start all over, if it will let 
me.

Rebooted, still gives me instant broken-packages for a mark on libwx-perl.

My current sources.list:

# deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main 

# deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main 

# deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main 
# deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main  

deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates non-free contrib main  
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports nob-free contrib main  
# deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch-oldstable non-free contrib main  
# deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates main 

# stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
# deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main 
# deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main 
EOF

So what do I need to fix?

Removed and reinstalled scic3r & slic3r-prussa, no deps listed.
Somethings fubar.

Thank you Reco

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224984

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 19 iul 20, 11:55:05, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> >
> > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > package.
> >
> > Reco
> >
> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> 
> I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like, made it 
> so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not a 
> perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of slic3r 
> or slic34-prussa, why did it not complain when I installed slic3r a 
> couple weeks back?  I'll remove it and start all over, if it will let 
> me.
> 
> Rebooted, still gives me instant broken-packages for a mark on libwx-perl.
> 
> My current sources.list:
> 
> # deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main 
> 
> # deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main 
> 
> # deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main 
> # deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main  
> 
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates non-free contrib main  
> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports nob-free contrib main  
                                                     ^^^^^
(but this is not your problem)

> # deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch-oldstable non-free contrib main  

There is no such thing as 'stretch-oldstable', it's either 'stretch' or 
'oldstable'. I would suggest 'stretch'

> # deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates 
> main 
> 
> # stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> # deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main 
> # deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main 
> EOF
> 
> So what do I need to fix?

Add

    deb https://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch non-free contrib main

or change the disabled line from above and don't forget to run
'apt update'.

Hope this helps,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224988

On Sunday 19 July 2020 12:00:28 Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Du, 19 iul 20, 11:55:05, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > >
> > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > > package.
> > >
> > > Reco
> > >
> > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> >
> > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like,
> > made it so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not
> > a perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of
> > slic3r or slic34-prussa, why did it not complain when I installed
> > slic3r a couple weeks back?  I'll remove it and start all over, if
> > it will let me.
> >
> > Rebooted, still gives me instant broken-packages for a mark on
> > libwx-perl.
> >
> > My current sources.list:
> >
> > # deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install
> > 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main
> >
> > # deb cdrom:[Unofficial LinuxCNC 'Stretch' amd64 Live/Install
> > 2018-10-27T16:56]/ stretch main
> >
> > # deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main
> > # deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main
> >
> > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates
> > non-free contrib main deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/
> > stretch-backports nob-free contrib main
>
>                                                      ^^^^^
> (but this is not your problem)
>
> > # deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch-oldstable non-free
> > contrib main
>
> There is no such thing as 'stretch-oldstable', it's either 'stretch'
> or 'oldstable'. I would suggest 'stretch'
>
> > # deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security/
> > stretch/updates main
> >
> > # stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> > # deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main
> > # deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-updates main
> > EOF
> >
> > So what do I need to fix?
>
> Add
>
>     deb https://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch non-free contrib main
>
> or change the disabled line from above and don't forget to run
> 'apt update'.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Andrei

Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason. Depends on 
2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get install line gets this:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
                           Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with this 
since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned tired of 
apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking it.

Thank you for trying.



Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224995

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
> Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason. Depends on 
> 2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get install line gets this:

If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the install line 
won't help.
 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
>                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with this 
> since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned tired of 
> apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking it.

Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a non-zero 
probability your system is in an inconsistent state due to packages from 
stretch-backports that shouldn't be there.

The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is to run

    aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'


Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just a search :)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225005

On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason.
> > Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get install
> > line gets this:
>
> If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the install line
> won't help.
>
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but
> > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~)
> > but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> >
> > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with
> > this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned
> > tired of apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking it.
>
> Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a non-zero
> probability your system is in an inconsistent state due to packages
> from stretch-backports that shouldn't be there.
>
> The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is to
> run
>
>     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
>
>
> Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just a
> search :)
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in about 100 
millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line feeds IOW. I don't 
read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its trying to tell me.

Thanks Andrei.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225022

On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> >
> > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > package.
> >
> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> 
> I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like, made it 
> so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not a 
> perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of slic3r 

      ↑ lose that hyphen.

Package: perl-base
Source: perl
Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
Essential: yes

You must have this.

Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl, libio-socket-ip-perl, libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl, libxsloader-perl, perlapi-5.24.1

On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason.
> > > Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get install
> > > line gets this:
> >
> > If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the install line
> > won't help.
> >
> > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~) but
> > > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~)
> > > but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > >
> > > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with
> > > this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned
> > > tired of apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking it.
> >
> > Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a non-zero
> > probability your system is in an inconsistent state due to packages
> > from stretch-backports that shouldn't be there.
> >
> > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is to
> > run
> >
> >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> >
> >
> > Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just a
> > search :)
> 
> that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in about 100 
> millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line feeds IOW. I don't 
> read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its trying to tell me.

Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.

BTW you could find that out by running   script   before the command,
and looking at ./typescript afterwards. In fact, you might save a lot
of time and effort when you're individualistically configuring your
systems by always running script. Because ./typescript gets
overwritten each time, I wrap it:

scrip is a function
scrip () 
{ 
    script "typescript-$HOSTNAME-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S)-$1"
}

$ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'

will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust aptitude.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225028

On Monday 20 July 2020 00:49:48 David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > >
> > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > > package.
> > >
> > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> >
> > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like,
> > made it so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not
> > a perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of
> > slic3r
>
>       ↑ lose that hyphen.
>
> Package: perl-base
> Source: perl
> Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
> Essential: yes
>
> You must have this.
>
> Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl, libio-socket-ip-perl,
> libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl, libxsloader-perl,
> perlapi-5.24.1
>
> On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason.
> > > > Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get
> > > > install line gets this:
> > >
> > > If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the install
> > > line won't help.
> > >
> > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > > >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~)
> > > > but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (<
> > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > > >
> > > > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with
> > > > this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned
> > > > tired of apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a non-zero
> > > probability your system is in an inconsistent state due to
> > > packages from stretch-backports that shouldn't be there.
> > >
> > > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is
> > > to run
> > >
> > >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just a
> > > search :)
> >
> > that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in about
> > 100 millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line feeds IOW. I
> > don't read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its trying to tell me.
>
> Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.
>
> BTW you could find that out by running   script   before the command,
> and looking at ./typescript afterwards. In fact, you might save a lot
> of time and effort when you're individualistically configuring your
> systems by always running script. Because ./typescript gets
> overwritten each time, I wrap it:
>
> scrip is a function
> scrip ()
> {
>     script "typescript-$HOSTNAME-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S)-$1"
> }
>
> $ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'
>
> will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust
> aptitude.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
I added perl-base to the list; but get this:

gene@coyote:~$ sudo apt-get install --allow-downgrades perl-base 
libwxgtk3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4 libwxgtk-media3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4
[sudo] password for gene:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
perl-base is already the newest version (5.24.1-3+deb9u7).
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libwxgtk-media3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
                         Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) 
but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
 libwxgtk3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
                   Depends: libwxgtk3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
                   Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

Those packages that are named aas to be instalkled, are in fact 
installed.

Now, if I have intentionally "held" broken packages, should those 
packages not be mentioned in preferences.d?

gene@coyote:~$ ls -l /etc/apt/preferences.d/
total 0

I don't have all of the apt stuff installed, but I'm going to add aptsh 
and apt-show-versions. Somewhere, and I have asked how to get apt to 
actually name the %$@^& problem package and been ignored, what, at least 
5 times in this thread.  But if it has a problem with a package that is 
causing all this BS, then it seems to me it ought to be able to name the 
exact @*&@& package.

So lets get to it and issue the command that will identify THAT package.
Experimenting here, apt-show-versions | grep newer spits out several 
hundred lines.

sudo aptsh
orphans has been grinding along, burning up one core for around 10 
minutes. killed it with a root htop after 15 minutes of no output.
Your turn.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225044

On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 04:53:13 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2020 00:49:48 David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > > >
> > > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> > >
> > > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like,
> > > made it so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not
> > > a perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of
> > > slic3r
> >
> >       ↑ lose that hyphen.
> >
> > Package: perl-base
> > Source: perl
> > Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
> > Essential: yes
> >
> > You must have this.
> >
> > Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl, libio-socket-ip-perl,
> > libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl, libxsloader-perl,
> > perlapi-5.24.1
> >
> > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > > On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a reason.
> > > > > Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the apt-get
> > > > > install line gets this:
> > > >
> > > > If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the install
> > > > line won't help.
> > > >
> > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > > > >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (< 3.0.3~)
> > > > > but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (<
> > > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing with
> > > > > this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I am damned
> > > > > tired of apt-gets inability to name the package thats breaking
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a non-zero
> > > > probability your system is in an inconsistent state due to
> > > > packages from stretch-backports that shouldn't be there.
> > > >
> > > > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is
> > > > to run
> > > >
> > > >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just a
> > > > search :)
> > >
> > > that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in about
> > > 100 millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line feeds IOW. I
> > > don't read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its trying to tell me.
> >
> > Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.
> >
> > BTW you could find that out by running   script   before the command,
> > and looking at ./typescript afterwards. In fact, you might save a lot
> > of time and effort when you're individualistically configuring your
> > systems by always running script. Because ./typescript gets
> > overwritten each time, I wrap it:
> >
> > scrip is a function
> > scrip ()
> > {
> >     script "typescript-$HOSTNAME-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S)-$1"
> > }
> >
> > $ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'
> >
> > will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust
> > aptitude.
> >
> I added perl-base to the list; but get this:
> 
> gene@coyote:~$ sudo apt-get install --allow-downgrades perl-base 
> libwxgtk3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4 libwxgtk-media3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4
> [sudo] password for gene:
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> perl-base is already the newest version (5.24.1-3+deb9u7).

Which fits my prediction that you'd have it; no need to try and
install it again.

> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libwxgtk-media3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
>                          Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) 
> but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
>  libwxgtk3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
>                    Depends: libwxgtk3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
>                    Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 
> 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> Those packages that are named aas to be instalkled, are in fact 
> installed.

Sure, and they're backports: apt-get is telling you that they're in
the way. If *you* install backports, then whenever you try to upgrade
the mainstream packages, *you* may have to smooth the upgrade path
if they get in the way.

> Now, if I have intentionally "held" broken packages, should those 
> packages not be mentioned in preferences.d?
> 
> gene@coyote:~$ ls -l /etc/apt/preferences.d/
> total 0
> 
> I don't have all of the apt stuff installed, but I'm going to add aptsh 
> and apt-show-versions. Somewhere, and I have asked how to get apt to 
> actually name the %$@^& problem package and been ignored, what, at least 
> 5 times in this thread.  But if it has a problem with a package that is 
> causing all this BS, then it seems to me it ought to be able to name the 
> exact @*&@& package.

AFAICT the problem packages are listed above:

wx3.0-headers         3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
libwxgtk3.0-0v5       3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
libwxbase3.0-dev      3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1

It wants to install the mainstream versions of these packages.

> So lets get to it and issue the command that will identify THAT package.
> Experimenting here, apt-show-versions | grep newer spits out several 
> hundred lines.

I can only assume that's because there are higher versions in
backports, but you're on stretch (of some sort) so I can't check here.

> sudo aptsh
> orphans has been grinding along, burning up one core for around 10 
> minutes. killed it with a root htop after 15 minutes of no output.

If packages are orphaned, ie not a dependency of anything, I don't see
why they'd be of interest.

> Your turn.

I've got nothing to fix.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225045

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:59:59AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> AFAICT the problem packages are listed above:
> 
> wx3.0-headers         3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxgtk3.0-0v5       3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxbase3.0-dev      3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> 
> It wants to install the mainstream versions of these packages.

> I can only assume that's because there are higher versions in
> backports, but you're on stretch (of some sort) so I can't check here.

Here's what it should look like on an untainted stretch system:

$ apt-cache policy wx3.0-headers libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 libwxgtk3.0-0v5 libwxbase3.0-dev
wx3.0-headers:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 3.0.2+dfsg-4
  Version table:
     3.0.2+dfsg-4 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages
libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 3.0.2+dfsg-4
  Version table:
     3.0.2+dfsg-4 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages
libwxgtk3.0-0v5:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 3.0.2+dfsg-4
  Version table:
     3.0.2+dfsg-4 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages
libwxbase3.0-dev:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 3.0.2+dfsg-4
  Version table:
     3.0.2+dfsg-4 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages

Gene has made his life harder by doing something outside of the norm,
again, and has not taken responsibility for his own changes, again.

As you said, backported (or third-party) packages that are in the way
should be removed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225062

On Monday 20 July 2020 10:59:59 David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 04:53:13 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 20 July 2020 00:49:48 David Wright wrote:
> > > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a
> > > > > real package.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> > > >
> > > > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like,
> > > > made it so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is
> > > > not a perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a
> > > > dependency of slic3r
> > >
> > >       ↑ lose that hyphen.
> > >
> > > Package: perl-base
> > > Source: perl
> > > Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
> > > Essential: yes
> > >
> > > You must have this.
> > >
> > > Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl,
> > > libio-socket-ip-perl, libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl,
> > > libxsloader-perl, perlapi-5.24.1
> > >
> > > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > > > On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a
> > > > > > reason. Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the
> > > > > > apt-get install line gets this:
> > > > >
> > > > > If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the
> > > > > install line won't help.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > > > > >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (<
> > > > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > > >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (<
> > > > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken
> > > > > > packages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing
> > > > > > with this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I
> > > > > > am damned tired of apt-gets inability to name the package
> > > > > > thats breaking it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a
> > > > > non-zero probability your system is in an inconsistent state
> > > > > due to packages from stretch-backports that shouldn't be
> > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports
> > > > > is to run
> > > > >
> > > > >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just
> > > > > a search :)
> > > >
> > > > that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in
> > > > about 100 millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line
> > > > feeds IOW. I don't read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its
> > > > trying to tell me.
> > >
> > > Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.
> > >
> > > BTW you could find that out by running   script   before the
> > > command, and looking at ./typescript afterwards. In fact, you
> > > might save a lot of time and effort when you're
> > > individualistically configuring your systems by always running
> > > script. Because ./typescript gets overwritten each time, I wrap
> > > it:
> > >
> > > scrip is a function
> > > scrip ()
> > > {
> > >     script "typescript-$HOSTNAME-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S)-$1"
> > > }
> > >
> > > $ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'
> > >
> > > will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust
> > > aptitude.
> >
> > I added perl-base to the list; but get this:
> >
> > gene@coyote:~$ sudo apt-get install --allow-downgrades perl-base
> > libwxgtk3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4 libwxgtk-media3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4
> > [sudo] password for gene:
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > perl-base is already the newest version (5.24.1-3+deb9u7).
>
> Which fits my prediction that you'd have it; no need to try and
> install it again.
>
> > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> >
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >  libwxgtk-media3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> >                          Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 (=
> > 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> >  libwxgtk3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> >                    Depends: libwxgtk3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> >                    Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> >
> > Those packages that are named aas to be instalkled, are in fact
> > installed.
>
> Sure, and they're backports: apt-get is telling you that they're in
> the way. If *you* install backports, then whenever you try to upgrade
> the mainstream packages, *you* may have to smooth the upgrade path
> if they get in the way.
>
> > Now, if I have intentionally "held" broken packages, should those
> > packages not be mentioned in preferences.d?
> >
> > gene@coyote:~$ ls -l /etc/apt/preferences.d/
> > total 0
> >
> > I don't have all of the apt stuff installed, but I'm going to add
> > aptsh and apt-show-versions. Somewhere, and I have asked how to get
> > apt to actually name the %$@^& problem package and been ignored,
> > what, at least 5 times in this thread.  But if it has a problem with
> > a package that is causing all this BS, then it seems to me it ought
> > to be able to name the exact @*&@& package.
>
> AFAICT the problem packages are listed above:
>
> wx3.0-headers         3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxgtk3.0-0v5       3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> libwxbase3.0-dev      3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
>
These 4 pkgs have now been downgraded to oldstable. And now a launch of 
slic3r --gui yells about a missing Wx.pm.  Not Wx3.pm, but Wx.pm.

What perl pkg, available for stretch, contains that module?

> It wants to install the mainstream versions of these packages.
>
> > So lets get to it and issue the command that will identify THAT
> > package. Experimenting here, apt-show-versions | grep newer spits
> > out several hundred lines.
>
> I can only assume that's because there are higher versions in
> backports, but you're on stretch (of some sort) so I can't check here.
>
> > sudo aptsh
> > orphans has been grinding along, burning up one core for around 10
> > minutes. killed it with a root htop after 15 minutes of no output.
>
> If packages are orphaned, ie not a dependency of anything, I don't see
> why they'd be of interest.

They wouldn't. I was exploring the help which is the manpage.

Thanks David.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225064

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:38:46PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> These 4 pkgs have now been downgraded to oldstable. And now a launch of 
> slic3r --gui yells about a missing Wx.pm.  Not Wx3.pm, but Wx.pm.
> 
> What perl pkg, available for stretch, contains that module?

You have two ways to find out.

One is to install the apt-file package, and use it locally.

The other way is to search for the filename in the repositories, using
the https://packages.debian.org/ web site (or the judd bot in IRC).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225073

On Monday 20 July 2020 13:48:12 Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:38:46PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > These 4 pkgs have now been downgraded to oldstable. And now a launch
> > of slic3r --gui yells about a missing Wx.pm.  Not Wx3.pm, but Wx.pm.
> >
> > What perl pkg, available for stretch, contains that module?
>
> You have two ways to find out.
>
> One is to install the apt-file package, and use it locally.
>
> The other way is to search for the filename in the repositories, using
> the https://packages.debian.org/ web site (or the judd bot in IRC).

apt-file was helpfull, thank you. It gave me the final clue.

By setting synaptic to prefer oldstable, and removing the stuff slic3r 
complained about, then re-installing the oldstable stuff, with about 3 
trips around the mulberry bush, I got it to run!!!  All w/o a reboot.

Now to find if its any better than Cura.

Thanks a bunch all.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225079

On Monday, July 20, 2020 02:34:11 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> By setting synaptic to prefer oldstable, and removing the stuff slic3r
> complained about, then re-installing the oldstable stuff, with about 3
> trips around the mulberry bush, I got it to run!!!  All w/o a reboot.

Hurrah!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225074

On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 13:38:46 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2020 10:59:59 David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 04:53:13 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 20 July 2020 00:49:48 David Wright wrote:
> > > > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a
> > > > > > real package.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> > > > >
> > > > > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like,
> > > > > made it so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is
> > > > > not a perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a
> > > > > dependency of slic3r
> > > >
> > > >       ↑ lose that hyphen.
> > > >
> > > > Package: perl-base
> > > > Source: perl
> > > > Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
> > > > Essential: yes
> > > >
> > > > You must have this.
> > > >
> > > > Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl,
> > > > libio-socket-ip-perl, libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl,
> > > > libxsloader-perl, perlapi-5.24.1
> > > >
> > > > On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > > > > On Du, 19 iul 20, 12:47:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > > Did that Andrei, updated apt-get, apt-get now gives a
> > > > > > > reason. Depends on 2 more packages, but adding them to the
> > > > > > > apt-get install line gets this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If APT can't find a solution adding more packages to the
> > > > > > install line won't help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > > > > > >  libalien-wxwidgets-perl : Depends: libwxgtk3.0-dev (<
> > > > > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > > > >                            Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-dev (<
> > > > > > > 3.0.3~) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > > > > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken
> > > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm about out of patience for the day. I have been screwing
> > > > > > > with this since about 5AM, and its now 12:45 local.  And I
> > > > > > > am damned tired of apt-gets inability to name the package
> > > > > > > thats breaking it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering how your sources.list looked like there's a
> > > > > > non-zero probability your system is in an inconsistent state
> > > > > > due to packages from stretch-backports that shouldn't be
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports
> > > > > > is to run
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know you wrote you don't trust 'aptitude', this is just
> > > > > > a search :)
> > > > >
> > > > > that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in
> > > > > about 100 millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line
> > > > > feeds IOW. I don't read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its
> > > > > trying to tell me.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.
> > > >
> > > > BTW you could find that out by running   script   before the
> > > > command, and looking at ./typescript afterwards. In fact, you
> > > > might save a lot of time and effort when you're
> > > > individualistically configuring your systems by always running
> > > > script. Because ./typescript gets overwritten each time, I wrap
> > > > it:
> > > >
> > > > scrip is a function
> > > > scrip ()
> > > > {
> > > >     script "typescript-$HOSTNAME-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S)-$1"
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > $ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'
> > > >
> > > > will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust
> > > > aptitude.
> > >
> > > I added perl-base to the list; but get this:
> > >
> > > gene@coyote:~$ sudo apt-get install --allow-downgrades perl-base
> > > libwxgtk3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4 libwxgtk-media3.0-dev=3.0.2+dfsg-4
> > > [sudo] password for gene:
> > > Reading package lists... Done
> > > Building dependency tree
> > > Reading state information... Done
> > > perl-base is already the newest version (5.24.1-3+deb9u7).
> >
> > Which fits my prediction that you'd have it; no need to try and
> > install it again.
> >
> > > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> > >
> > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > >  libwxgtk-media3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > >                          Depends: libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 (=
> > > 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > >  libwxgtk3.0-dev : Depends: wx3.0-headers (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > >                    Depends: libwxgtk3.0-0v5 (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > >                    Depends: libwxbase3.0-dev (= 3.0.2+dfsg-4) but
> > > 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1 is to be installed
> > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > >
> > > Those packages that are named aas to be instalkled, are in fact
> > > installed.
> >
> > Sure, and they're backports: apt-get is telling you that they're in
> > the way. If *you* install backports, then whenever you try to upgrade
> > the mainstream packages, *you* may have to smooth the upgrade path
> > if they get in the way.
> >
> > > Now, if I have intentionally "held" broken packages, should those
> > > packages not be mentioned in preferences.d?
> > >
> > > gene@coyote:~$ ls -l /etc/apt/preferences.d/
> > > total 0
> > >
> > > I don't have all of the apt stuff installed, but I'm going to add
> > > aptsh and apt-show-versions. Somewhere, and I have asked how to get
> > > apt to actually name the %$@^& problem package and been ignored,
> > > what, at least 5 times in this thread.  But if it has a problem with
> > > a package that is causing all this BS, then it seems to me it ought
> > > to be able to name the exact @*&@& package.
> >
> > AFAICT the problem packages are listed above:
> >
> > wx3.0-headers         3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> > libwxgtk-media3.0-0v5 3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> > libwxgtk3.0-0v5       3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> > libwxbase3.0-dev      3.0.4+dfsg-4~bpo9+1
> >
> These 4 pkgs have now been downgraded to oldstable. And now a launch of 
> slic3r --gui yells about a missing Wx.pm.  Not Wx3.pm, but Wx.pm.
> 
> What perl pkg, available for stretch, contains that module?

Having downgraded those packages and prepared the way for libxw-perl,
did you actually install it?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225034

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 19 iul 20, 23:49:48, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 11:55:05 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2020 09:56:10 Reco wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:45:41AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Looks like my apt/sources.d is not uptodate?
> > >
> > > Looks like it is. Because [1] shows libwx-perl, and it's a real
> > > package.
> > >
> > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libwx-perl
> > 
> > I found a page that shows what my sources.list should look like, made it 
> > so, but still can't install libwx-perl because there is not a 
> > perl-api-5.24.1 and a matching lib.  If this is a dependency of slic3r 
> 
>       ↑ lose that hyphen.
> 
> Package: perl-base
> Source: perl
> Version: 5.24.1-3+deb9u6
> Essential: yes
> 
> You must have this.
> 
> Provides: libfile-path-perl, libfile-temp-perl, libio-socket-ip-perl, libscalar-list-utils-perl, libsocket-perl, libxsloader-perl, perlapi-5.24.1
> 
> On Sun 19 Jul 2020 at 14:30:54 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2020 13:38:22 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > The easiest way to find all installed packages from backports is to
> > > run
> > >
> > >     aptitude search '?narrow(?installed,?archive(backports))'
> > 
> > that spits out about 3 or 4 lines of text and blanks it, in about 100 
> > millisecs, and will not redirect to |less. No line feeds IOW. I don't 
> > read at 20k wpm, so I've no clue what its trying to tell me.
> 
> Nothing at that point; it's just building indices.

Right, it might not output anything, if Gene in the meantime removed 
-backports from sources.list.
 
> $ dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'
> 
> will likely give you a list of your backports as you don't trust aptitude.

Yep.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225047

On Monday 20 July 2020 07:24:41 Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'|wc -l
171

And backports is gone in the src's.list

Thats way too many to try to downgrade, specially since there was a 
reason to add backoports in the first place.

And either backports should never have been done, OR apt should consider 
them equ since most of them, if not all are bugfixes, and not new 
features...

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225048

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2020 07:24:41 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'|wc -l
> 171

Why in the name of all that is unholy did you install ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY-ONE backported packages?!?

What were you THINKING?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225049

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 20 iul 20, 11:41:04, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 20 July 2020 07:24:41 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > 
> > > dpkg -l | grep '\<bpo'|wc -l
> > 171
> 
> Why in the name of all that is unholy did you install ONE HUNDRED
> SEVENTY-ONE backported packages?!?
> 
> What were you THINKING?
 
This might have happened accidentally when installing on / upgrading a 
system with nothing but -backports in sources.list.

Gene, in that list there's probably (hopefully!) only a few packages 
that you really need at a newer version. If you can identify those you 
could try to downgrade the rest.

Do mind downgrading a package is not officially supported. It may or may 
not work, depending on the package.

Removing the newer version and installing the older version instead is 
the safe approach.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225063

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:41:58PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2020 11:41:04 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Why in the name of all that is unholy did you install ONE HUNDRED
> > SEVENTY-ONE backported packages?!?
> >
> > What were you THINKING?
> Automatic install by synaptic as they became available over the years.

That's not how backports are intended to WORK.  Every one is a special
snowflake.  You have to type "-t stretch-backports" (or analogous
repository selection option) on your command in order to get them.

If synaptic is pulling in *-backports without you manually DOING something
to select the backport over the standard version, then synaptic is
broken.  Broken-er.  More broken-er.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web