Re: Gimp Babl too old
Tixy wrote: "Sounds like the sort of thing the third party repository at
Why do they do that? Simply to order their repository ahead of the others?
So why not just advise people to change sources.list? It seems like they don't
themselves make a statement on the subject.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:03 AM Tixy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 19:54 +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> > At first, it sounded like the last `apt update` execution
> > occurred some time between “libbabl-dev” and “libbabl-0.1-0”
> > upgrade to version 0.1.56-1 on repositories side.
> > But “libbabl-0.1-0” seems somehow picked from another
> > repository, the version convention “1:0.1.44-dmo1” looks like it
> > is designed to supersede Debian's initial package on purpose.
> Sounds like the sort of thing the third party repository at
> deb-multimedia.org does, and the 'dmo1' in the package name is a big
> clue that is the case here. Basically, every time a version of a
> library in deb-multimedia falls behind Debian you're likely to get some
> kind of breakage, because it has used the epoch number to fake up this
> 'I'm a higher version so install me instead of the of official Debian
> If the OP is running Sid with deb-multimedia then this sort of thing is
> going to be a reoccurring problem.