Re: Slic3r --gui won't run
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.
Reply to: