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.
