Re: (OT) Top Posting (was Re: Gimp Babl too old)
Kenneth Parker writes: > I have a special issue: Using Gmail on a Phone or Tablet (I have > both). Both of those devices lack a proper keyboard. That makes them unsuitable for composing anything but very short messages, and wholly unsuitable for editing text. > Seriously, how do others of you deal with navigating this Debian List > on Android, while being a "Good Netizen"? I deal with it by never composing or editing messages without a proper keyboard. Handheld, full-touchscreen devices are fine as reading devices, and maybe for very limited gross-control input, but it's a mistake to try to use them as text editing devices until you connect a real keyboard. -- \ “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I | `\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I | _o__) meant.” —Robert J. McCloskey | Ben Finney
Re: (OT) Top Posting (was Re: Gimp Babl too old)
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Kenneth Parker wrote: > Seriously, how do others of you deal with navigating this Debian List on > Android, while being a "Good Netizen"? Personally I don't. A phone is a horrible tool for composing texts and is nowhere near a replacement for a computer. Using an inferior tool is no excuse to inconvenience others. My pet peeve here is when people try to use the Stack Exchange app or whatever, and excuse the lousy formatting on "I'm on the phone", but thanks for pointing out another one: gmail top posting! It's bad enough in an an actual browser on a real computer... I loathe the "appification" of everything these days, dumbing down everything to the lowest lousiest common denominator for people who can only point and click with their thumbs. (I was about to write but I will never stop ranting about this!)
(OT) Top Posting (was Re: Gimp Babl too old)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:07 PM Ric Moore wrote: > > > > Same reason some people top post. They just ignore the conventions. > I have a special issue: Using Gmail on a Phone or Tablet (I have both). I have yet to find a Straightforward way to Snip lots of lines, using the Android App. Also, Gmail "hides" the lines from the prior responses in the Thread, making it *WAY* too easy to Top Post. (You have to touch a link to see them). So, since I "feel your Pain", I generally save my Debian Responses for, when I get home with, either my Debian 9 Laptop, my Ubuntu 16.04 Laptop (to be upgraded to Debian 9 in the next month), or the Chromebook I am typing on now. Seriously, how do others of you deal with navigating this Debian List on Android, while being a "Good Netizen"? Thank you and best regards, Kenneth Parker, Computer Consultant
Re: Gimp Babl too old
On 09/13/2018 12:41 PM, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: Tixy wrote: "Sounds like the sort of thing the third party repository at deb-multimedia.org does" Why do they do that? Simply to order their repository ahead of the others? Same reason some people top post. They just ignore the conventions. -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Re: Gimp Babl too old
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:32:57 -0400 Dan Ritter wrote: Hello Dan, >Basically, people who use deb-multimedia.org want someone to package up >fresh versions of the kinds of tools that get updated frequently with >new features, while mostly maintaining the stability that comes with It's not that simple. DMO also includes stuff that Debian won't due to licensing conflicts with DFSG. DMO doesn't have the same criteria as DFSG, so can include things Debian won't. Acroread and flashplayer, for example. There is also similar treatment of software that isn't entirely legal in certain jurisdictions. For example, libdvdcss. The reason DMO places a higher than Debian epoch on software versions is to avoid the need to set up pinning to prefer DMO over Debian. Of course, this can have unfortunate consequences. Especially if a user decides to remove DMO as a repo. The consequences aren't insurmountable, but one does need to be careful dealing with the changes from having DMO included in sources.list to a sources.list w/o DMO in it. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Every single one of us Devil Inside - INXS pgp_7jyHmXn29.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Gimp Babl too old
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > Tixy wrote: "Sounds like the sort of thing the third party repository at > deb-multimedia.org does" > > 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. Basically, people who use deb-multimedia.org want someone to package up fresh versions of the kinds of tools that get updated frequently with new features, while mostly maintaining the stability that comes with running Debian Stable. So deb-multimedia.org has audio and video editors, players, MythTV, encoders, decoders, transmogrifiers, and so forth. It's a little like backports, but outside of the Debian organization and not necessarily adhering to Debian rules. Conflicts are inevitable, but mostly minor, like what we have in this example. It's not like they're packaging new glibc or xorg, where a thousand packages can scream in agony. -dsr-
Re: Gimp Babl too old
Tixy wrote: "Sounds like the sort of thing the third party repository at deb-multimedia.org does" 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 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 > library'. > > If the OP is running Sid with deb-multimedia then this sort of thing is > going to be a reoccurring problem. > > -- > Tixy >
Re: Gimp Babl too old
On 13/09/18 07:03, Tixy 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 library'. If the OP is running Sid with deb-multimedia then this sort of thing is going to be a reoccurring problem. Thnaks for the explanatio. I was indeed using deb-multimedia.org repository a while ago. Mystery solved!
Re: Gimp Babl too old
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 library'. If the OP is running Sid with deb-multimedia then this sort of thing is going to be a reoccurring problem. -- Tixy
Re: Gimp Babl too old
Bonjour Pétùr, On 9/12/18 10:40 AM, Pétùr wrote: > I can only find the 0.1-0 version: Don't let yourself be fooled by the version number in the package name (the part before the “/now”), and the real package version number (the part between the “/now” and “amd64”). It is a way to have various versions of a same software installed on your system. > $ apt search libbabl > En train de trier... Fait > Recherche en texte intégral... Fait > libbabl-0.1-0/now 1:0.1.44-dmo1 amd64 [installé, local] > Dynamic, any to any, pixel format conversion library > > libbabl-0.1-0-dbg/stable 0.1.18-1 amd64 > bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de > formats de pixels –⋅symboles de débogage > > libbabl-dev/unstable,testing 0.1.56-1 amd64 > bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de > formats de pixels –⋅fichiers de développement > > libbabl-doc/unstable,testing 0.1.56-1 all > bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de > formats de pixels –⋅documentation 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. If there are no more third party repository in your sources.list files, you may be able to get the proper version by enforcing it at installation: # apt install libbabl-0.1-0=0.1.56-1 A warning may ask you if you are certain you wish to downgrade. Once done, you *may* be able to make use of Gimp. Please be aware that there are quite some chances other packages have been affected by similar quirks, if you have installed a few of them from third party repositories. I hope this helps anyway, Bien à vous, -- Étienne Mollier
Re: Gimp Babl too old
Le 11/09/2018 à 20:09, Dan Ritter a écrit : > > and a check says that sid now has a version 0.1.56 of babl, so > you should try installing that. Hi, I can only find the 0.1-0 version: $ apt search libbabl En train de trier... Fait Recherche en texte intégral... Fait libbabl-0.1-0/now 1:0.1.44-dmo1 amd64 [installé, local] Dynamic, any to any, pixel format conversion library libbabl-0.1-0-dbg/stable 0.1.18-1 amd64 bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de formats de pixels –⋅symboles de débogage libbabl-dev/unstable,testing 0.1.56-1 amd64 bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de formats de pixels –⋅fichiers de développement libbabl-doc/unstable,testing 0.1.56-1 all bibliothèque dynamique de conversion de tous types de formats de pixels –⋅documentation
Re: Gimp Babl too old
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 07:12:19PM +0200, Pétùr wrote: > Gimp does not start on debian sid and shows the message: > > --- > BABL version too old! > > GIMP requires BABL version 0.1.56 or later. > Installed BABL version is 0.1.44. > > Somehow you or your software packager managed > to install GIMP with an older BABL version. > > Please upgrade to BABL version 0.1.56 or later. > --- > > How to fix it? I tried purge and reinstall, installing gegl. As with all package questions about sid, the primary answer is "have you checked with the packaging team?" http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/g/gimp/gimp_2.10.6-3_changelog says: gimp (2.10.6-3) unstable; urgency=medium * Add X-Ubuntu-Use-Langpack to opt in to Ubuntu language pack * handling (LP: #1779574) * Bump Standards-Version to 4.2.1 -- Jeremy Bicha Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:08:42 -0400 gimp (2.10.6-2) unstable; urgency=medium * debian/gimp.install: Remove extra line which caused file * conflict (Closes: #906892) -- Jeremy Bicha Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:47:28 -0400 gimp (2.10.6-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release (Closes: #900819) * debian/libgimp2.0.symbols: Add new symbols * Bump minimum babl to 0.1.56 and gegl to 0.4.8 * debian/gimp.install: Install gimp-test-clipboard * Update install files now that gimp add-ons are installed in * subdirectories -- Jeremy Bicha Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:42:06 -0400 and a check says that sid now has a version 0.1.56 of babl, so you should try installing that. -dsr-
Gimp Babl too old
Gimp does not start on debian sid and shows the message: --- BABL version too old! GIMP requires BABL version 0.1.56 or later. Installed BABL version is 0.1.44. Somehow you or your software packager managed to install GIMP with an older BABL version. Please upgrade to BABL version 0.1.56 or later. --- How to fix it? I tried purge and reinstall, installing gegl. Pétùr
