[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Slic3r --gui won't run



On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 12:24:35 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2020 10:11:40 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.
> > […]
> > (I would like to help Gene with his problem, but I think you're giving
> > the best advice on this atm.  (I was trying to tell him that the
> > problem package(s) that he is looking for is (are) those named in the
> > apt-get install command, but don't think I was very clear.)
> 
> What is upsetting me is that there is not, from the wording coming back 
> out of apt, any way to identify the package that needs (apparently) to 
> be downgraded, that starts this whole mess.  Since this all seems to 
> start with the slic3r's --gui option, IMNSHO it should have been 
> something that apt should have solved for when I installed slic3r. But 
> apparently the author didn't list the Depends pulled in if the --gui 
> option was enabled.

If you only need libwx-perl to run the --gui option, then it wouldn't
be appropriate to list it as a Depends, would it. At most, it would be
a Recommends; perhaps just a Suggests.

The packages that need downgrading are listed in your error message.
Whether you *can* downgrade just those packages them with 171 backports
on your system is another matter. (There might be second order
dependencies, and then third order, etc.)

> Change of subject, what do we have that can process and display a .step 
> file?

Please. Etiquette.

Cheers,
David.


Reply to: