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