How do I resolve package conflicts between Ubuntu and GIMP?











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












In Ubuntu 18.04 (Cinnamon), the package cpp-7 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 of package gcc-7-base:



$ aptitude why gcc-7-base
i cpp-7 Depends gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04)


Meanwhile, the package libgfortran4 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 of the same package gcc-7-base:



$ apt-cache show libgfortran4
Package: libgfortran4
...
Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3), libc6 (>= 2.27), libgcc1, libquadmath0


and libgfortran4 won't install if I have the other version of the package already installed:



$ sudo apt-get install libgfortran4
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgfortran4 : Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) but 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 is to be installed
Depends: libquadmath0 but it is not going to be installed


cpp-7 is in the dependency graph of ubuntu-desktop. libgfortran4 is in the dependency graph of gimp. Doesn't this imply that no one can ever install GIMP from the repositories on Ubuntu 18.04? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly can't.



To make the matter even more maddening, apt-cache showpkg shows that the two different versions of gcc-7-base come from the same repository and have the same MD5 hash:



$ apt-cache showpkg gcc-7-base
Package: gcc-7-base
Versions:
7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 (/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d
...
7.3.0-16ubuntu3 (/var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d


meaning (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that they're the exact same code. So, there isn't an actual dependency conflict here, only one of labels.



How does this happen and how do I fix it? For example, is there a way for me to tell either cpp-7 or libgfortran4 that it's okay to accept the other version of gcc-7-base, because it's the exact same code? Do I need to get the package maintainer(s) involved?



Edit: A few days ago I posted a question on this topic. The current question is the narrowed-down result of work I've done on it in the meantime.



Edit: These are my active sources:



$ grep -Ev '(^#|^ *$|deb-src)' /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic main restricted
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic universe
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic multiverse
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb [arch=amd64] https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list.save:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.list~:deb [arch=amd64] http://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main


There's a commented deb-src for updates,



# deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


but nothing commented or uncommented for updates that's just deb. Should I add a line



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


?



Edit: Adding



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


to my /etc/apt/sources.list file, then $ sudo apt-get update worked. GIMP installed as expected with $ sudo apt-get install gimp. Thank you all!










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    I think this may solve your problem
    – Gabriel Ziegler
    Dec 2 at 14:56










  • @DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:56






  • 1




    @GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:59






  • 2




    I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:07












  • I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
    – xenoid
    Dec 2 at 22:37















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












In Ubuntu 18.04 (Cinnamon), the package cpp-7 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 of package gcc-7-base:



$ aptitude why gcc-7-base
i cpp-7 Depends gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04)


Meanwhile, the package libgfortran4 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 of the same package gcc-7-base:



$ apt-cache show libgfortran4
Package: libgfortran4
...
Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3), libc6 (>= 2.27), libgcc1, libquadmath0


and libgfortran4 won't install if I have the other version of the package already installed:



$ sudo apt-get install libgfortran4
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgfortran4 : Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) but 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 is to be installed
Depends: libquadmath0 but it is not going to be installed


cpp-7 is in the dependency graph of ubuntu-desktop. libgfortran4 is in the dependency graph of gimp. Doesn't this imply that no one can ever install GIMP from the repositories on Ubuntu 18.04? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly can't.



To make the matter even more maddening, apt-cache showpkg shows that the two different versions of gcc-7-base come from the same repository and have the same MD5 hash:



$ apt-cache showpkg gcc-7-base
Package: gcc-7-base
Versions:
7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 (/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d
...
7.3.0-16ubuntu3 (/var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d


meaning (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that they're the exact same code. So, there isn't an actual dependency conflict here, only one of labels.



How does this happen and how do I fix it? For example, is there a way for me to tell either cpp-7 or libgfortran4 that it's okay to accept the other version of gcc-7-base, because it's the exact same code? Do I need to get the package maintainer(s) involved?



Edit: A few days ago I posted a question on this topic. The current question is the narrowed-down result of work I've done on it in the meantime.



Edit: These are my active sources:



$ grep -Ev '(^#|^ *$|deb-src)' /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic main restricted
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic universe
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic multiverse
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb [arch=amd64] https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list.save:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.list~:deb [arch=amd64] http://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main


There's a commented deb-src for updates,



# deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


but nothing commented or uncommented for updates that's just deb. Should I add a line



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


?



Edit: Adding



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


to my /etc/apt/sources.list file, then $ sudo apt-get update worked. GIMP installed as expected with $ sudo apt-get install gimp. Thank you all!










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    I think this may solve your problem
    – Gabriel Ziegler
    Dec 2 at 14:56










  • @DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:56






  • 1




    @GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:59






  • 2




    I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:07












  • I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
    – xenoid
    Dec 2 at 22:37













up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











In Ubuntu 18.04 (Cinnamon), the package cpp-7 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 of package gcc-7-base:



$ aptitude why gcc-7-base
i cpp-7 Depends gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04)


Meanwhile, the package libgfortran4 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 of the same package gcc-7-base:



$ apt-cache show libgfortran4
Package: libgfortran4
...
Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3), libc6 (>= 2.27), libgcc1, libquadmath0


and libgfortran4 won't install if I have the other version of the package already installed:



$ sudo apt-get install libgfortran4
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgfortran4 : Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) but 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 is to be installed
Depends: libquadmath0 but it is not going to be installed


cpp-7 is in the dependency graph of ubuntu-desktop. libgfortran4 is in the dependency graph of gimp. Doesn't this imply that no one can ever install GIMP from the repositories on Ubuntu 18.04? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly can't.



To make the matter even more maddening, apt-cache showpkg shows that the two different versions of gcc-7-base come from the same repository and have the same MD5 hash:



$ apt-cache showpkg gcc-7-base
Package: gcc-7-base
Versions:
7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 (/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d
...
7.3.0-16ubuntu3 (/var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d


meaning (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that they're the exact same code. So, there isn't an actual dependency conflict here, only one of labels.



How does this happen and how do I fix it? For example, is there a way for me to tell either cpp-7 or libgfortran4 that it's okay to accept the other version of gcc-7-base, because it's the exact same code? Do I need to get the package maintainer(s) involved?



Edit: A few days ago I posted a question on this topic. The current question is the narrowed-down result of work I've done on it in the meantime.



Edit: These are my active sources:



$ grep -Ev '(^#|^ *$|deb-src)' /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic main restricted
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic universe
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic multiverse
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb [arch=amd64] https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list.save:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.list~:deb [arch=amd64] http://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main


There's a commented deb-src for updates,



# deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


but nothing commented or uncommented for updates that's just deb. Should I add a line



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


?



Edit: Adding



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


to my /etc/apt/sources.list file, then $ sudo apt-get update worked. GIMP installed as expected with $ sudo apt-get install gimp. Thank you all!










share|improve this question















In Ubuntu 18.04 (Cinnamon), the package cpp-7 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 of package gcc-7-base:



$ aptitude why gcc-7-base
i cpp-7 Depends gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04)


Meanwhile, the package libgfortran4 depends precisely on version 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 of the same package gcc-7-base:



$ apt-cache show libgfortran4
Package: libgfortran4
...
Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3), libc6 (>= 2.27), libgcc1, libquadmath0


and libgfortran4 won't install if I have the other version of the package already installed:



$ sudo apt-get install libgfortran4
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgfortran4 : Depends: gcc-7-base (= 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) but 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 is to be installed
Depends: libquadmath0 but it is not going to be installed


cpp-7 is in the dependency graph of ubuntu-desktop. libgfortran4 is in the dependency graph of gimp. Doesn't this imply that no one can ever install GIMP from the repositories on Ubuntu 18.04? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly can't.



To make the matter even more maddening, apt-cache showpkg shows that the two different versions of gcc-7-base come from the same repository and have the same MD5 hash:



$ apt-cache showpkg gcc-7-base
Package: gcc-7-base
Versions:
7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 (/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d
...
7.3.0-16ubuntu3 (/var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages)
Description Language:
File: /var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_bionic_main_binary-amd64_Packages
MD5: b6e93638a6d08ea7a18929d7cf078e5d


meaning (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that they're the exact same code. So, there isn't an actual dependency conflict here, only one of labels.



How does this happen and how do I fix it? For example, is there a way for me to tell either cpp-7 or libgfortran4 that it's okay to accept the other version of gcc-7-base, because it's the exact same code? Do I need to get the package maintainer(s) involved?



Edit: A few days ago I posted a question on this topic. The current question is the narrowed-down result of work I've done on it in the meantime.



Edit: These are my active sources:



$ grep -Ev '(^#|^ *$|deb-src)' /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic main restricted
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic universe
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic multiverse
/etc/apt/sources.list:deb [arch=amd64] https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/keybase.list.save:deb http://prerelease.keybase.io/deb stable main
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.list~:deb [arch=amd64] http://packages.microsoft.com/repos/vscode stable main


There's a commented deb-src for updates,



# deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


but nothing commented or uncommented for updates that's just deb. Should I add a line



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


?



Edit: Adding



deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted


to my /etc/apt/sources.list file, then $ sudo apt-get update worked. GIMP installed as expected with $ sudo apt-get install gimp. Thank you all!







18.04 package-management gcc gimp






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 2 at 16:46

























asked Dec 2 at 14:37









Darien Marks

716




716








  • 1




    I think this may solve your problem
    – Gabriel Ziegler
    Dec 2 at 14:56










  • @DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:56






  • 1




    @GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:59






  • 2




    I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:07












  • I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
    – xenoid
    Dec 2 at 22:37














  • 1




    I think this may solve your problem
    – Gabriel Ziegler
    Dec 2 at 14:56










  • @DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:56






  • 1




    @GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 14:59






  • 2




    I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:07












  • I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
    – xenoid
    Dec 2 at 22:37








1




1




I think this may solve your problem
– Gabriel Ziegler
Dec 2 at 14:56




I think this may solve your problem
– Gabriel Ziegler
Dec 2 at 14:56












@DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 14:56




@DKBose Yes, I posted that one, too. I edited my question to reference it. Thanks.
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 14:56




1




1




@GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 14:59




@GabrielZiegler It does not, but thanks. aptitude suggests downgrading a bunch of packages to 16.04 versions, which I think is an unreasonable solution that's bound to cause more problems than it solves, especially since there's apparently no actual conflict in the code of 18.04 package versions in this case.
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 14:59




2




2




I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:07






I have cpp-7, gfortran, and gimp installed on 18.04 and I didn't jump through any hoops to do it. Something else must be going on.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:07














I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
– xenoid
Dec 2 at 22:37




I run both Gimp 2.8.22 (from PPA) and 2.10.8 (flatpak) on 16.04 and neither requires libgfortran4.
– xenoid
Dec 2 at 22:37










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This kind of issue is usually fixed by a simple apt update.



Let's see why by querying the madison database for the available 18.04 versions of gcc-7-base and libgfortran4.



$ rmadison gcc-7-base
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x

$ rmadison libgfortran4
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x


You can see that libgfortran4 is the bionic (non-updates) version, and has the bionic (non-updates) dependency. gcc-7-base, on the other hand uses the newer bionic-updates dependency.



There are two common reasons for this kind of de-sync between a base repository and it's corresponding -updates repository on a single system.




  1. The user has recently disabled the -updates repository. Easy enough to check and fix in /etc/apt/sources.list or your Software and Sources control panel.


  2. The user simply hasn't run apt update in a while to refresh (update) apt's local database of available packages from both sources. That's an easy fix, too.



Your file /etc/apt/sources.list should have some combination of mirrors and sources that adds up to:



deb [mirror URL] bionic main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-updates main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-security main


The optional universe, multiverse, and restricted repos can be included on the same lines.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:21










  • @OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:27






  • 1




    The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:30






  • 1




    @DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 15:30












  • @OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:39


















up vote
3
down vote













Another option is to install the snap version of GIMP. I realize some folks don't like snaps, but this may be a more palatable solution for the casual Linux user.



sudo snap install gimp





share|improve this answer























  • You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 19:47






  • 1




    OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
    – dessert
    2 days ago


















up vote
0
down vote













In addition to the accepted answer: If you have only default sources enabled and the latest package list (apt update) and still encounter such conflicts on basic packages like gimp, then report a bug. This is something, what should be fixed by the package maintainer and what probably is rather easy to fix for him. It also may affect more people than just you. Such bugs happen from time to time, but the maintainers need to know.



Of course you should make sure, that your configuration and package status is not the problem before, because if you e.g. have got gimp (or some of its dependencies) from a third-party repository, the ubuntu maintainers cannot help you.






share|improve this answer





















  • The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
    – user535733
    2 days ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1097914%2fhow-do-i-resolve-package-conflicts-between-ubuntu-and-gimp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This kind of issue is usually fixed by a simple apt update.



Let's see why by querying the madison database for the available 18.04 versions of gcc-7-base and libgfortran4.



$ rmadison gcc-7-base
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x

$ rmadison libgfortran4
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x


You can see that libgfortran4 is the bionic (non-updates) version, and has the bionic (non-updates) dependency. gcc-7-base, on the other hand uses the newer bionic-updates dependency.



There are two common reasons for this kind of de-sync between a base repository and it's corresponding -updates repository on a single system.




  1. The user has recently disabled the -updates repository. Easy enough to check and fix in /etc/apt/sources.list or your Software and Sources control panel.


  2. The user simply hasn't run apt update in a while to refresh (update) apt's local database of available packages from both sources. That's an easy fix, too.



Your file /etc/apt/sources.list should have some combination of mirrors and sources that adds up to:



deb [mirror URL] bionic main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-updates main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-security main


The optional universe, multiverse, and restricted repos can be included on the same lines.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:21










  • @OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:27






  • 1




    The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:30






  • 1




    @DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 15:30












  • @OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:39















up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This kind of issue is usually fixed by a simple apt update.



Let's see why by querying the madison database for the available 18.04 versions of gcc-7-base and libgfortran4.



$ rmadison gcc-7-base
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x

$ rmadison libgfortran4
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x


You can see that libgfortran4 is the bionic (non-updates) version, and has the bionic (non-updates) dependency. gcc-7-base, on the other hand uses the newer bionic-updates dependency.



There are two common reasons for this kind of de-sync between a base repository and it's corresponding -updates repository on a single system.




  1. The user has recently disabled the -updates repository. Easy enough to check and fix in /etc/apt/sources.list or your Software and Sources control panel.


  2. The user simply hasn't run apt update in a while to refresh (update) apt's local database of available packages from both sources. That's an easy fix, too.



Your file /etc/apt/sources.list should have some combination of mirrors and sources that adds up to:



deb [mirror URL] bionic main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-updates main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-security main


The optional universe, multiverse, and restricted repos can be included on the same lines.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:21










  • @OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:27






  • 1




    The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:30






  • 1




    @DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 15:30












  • @OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:39













up vote
9
down vote



accepted







up vote
9
down vote



accepted






This kind of issue is usually fixed by a simple apt update.



Let's see why by querying the madison database for the available 18.04 versions of gcc-7-base and libgfortran4.



$ rmadison gcc-7-base
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x

$ rmadison libgfortran4
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x


You can see that libgfortran4 is the bionic (non-updates) version, and has the bionic (non-updates) dependency. gcc-7-base, on the other hand uses the newer bionic-updates dependency.



There are two common reasons for this kind of de-sync between a base repository and it's corresponding -updates repository on a single system.




  1. The user has recently disabled the -updates repository. Easy enough to check and fix in /etc/apt/sources.list or your Software and Sources control panel.


  2. The user simply hasn't run apt update in a while to refresh (update) apt's local database of available packages from both sources. That's an easy fix, too.



Your file /etc/apt/sources.list should have some combination of mirrors and sources that adds up to:



deb [mirror URL] bionic main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-updates main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-security main


The optional universe, multiverse, and restricted repos can be included on the same lines.






share|improve this answer














This kind of issue is usually fixed by a simple apt update.



Let's see why by querying the madison database for the available 18.04 versions of gcc-7-base and libgfortran4.



$ rmadison gcc-7-base
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
gcc-7-base | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x

$ rmadison libgfortran4
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-16ubuntu3 | bionic | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
libgfortran4 | 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04 | bionic-updates | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x


You can see that libgfortran4 is the bionic (non-updates) version, and has the bionic (non-updates) dependency. gcc-7-base, on the other hand uses the newer bionic-updates dependency.



There are two common reasons for this kind of de-sync between a base repository and it's corresponding -updates repository on a single system.




  1. The user has recently disabled the -updates repository. Easy enough to check and fix in /etc/apt/sources.list or your Software and Sources control panel.


  2. The user simply hasn't run apt update in a while to refresh (update) apt's local database of available packages from both sources. That's an easy fix, too.



Your file /etc/apt/sources.list should have some combination of mirrors and sources that adds up to:



deb [mirror URL] bionic main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-updates main
deb [mirror URL] bionic-security main


The optional universe, multiverse, and restricted repos can be included on the same lines.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 2 at 15:52

























answered Dec 2 at 15:17









user535733

7,35722941




7,35722941








  • 1




    I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:21










  • @OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:27






  • 1




    The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:30






  • 1




    @DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 15:30












  • @OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:39














  • 1




    I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:21










  • @OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:27






  • 1




    The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
    – Organic Marble
    Dec 2 at 15:30






  • 1




    @DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 15:30












  • @OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
    – Darien Marks
    Dec 2 at 15:39








1




1




I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:21




I'm pretty sure you've nailed it. In the linked question, the OP says "but the only "updates" repos in my /etc/apt/sources.list are commented out, and I've never knowingly had them enabled." Don't know why someone would comment out "updates" repo, but there you have it.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:21












@OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 15:27




@OrganicMarble What I meant was, I've never knowingly done anything to the "updates" repos at all. So, either it came commented out when I did a fresh install of 18.04 a few weeks ago, or it got commented out as an unexpected consequence of something else I did. Is it supposed to be enabled?
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 15:27




1




1




The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:30




The default on my installs has always been to have the security and updates repos enabled, but Linux is so configurable I hate to say what is "supposed" to be.
– Organic Marble
Dec 2 at 15:30




1




1




@DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
– user535733
Dec 2 at 15:30






@DarienMarks if you want updates (most do, you do, it's the default), then go into the file (or control panel) and enable -updates and -security. Then run an apt update. Guessing as to how or why -updates was disabled is just speculation, and seems rather wasted effort.
– user535733
Dec 2 at 15:30














@OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 15:39




@OrganicMarble Follow-up question. My /etc/apt/sources.list only has a main-repo "updates" listing that begins with deb-src, which in my understanding is for source files that I want to compile myself. Should there be one that starts with just deb, or is the deb-src one the one I want to uncomment?
– Darien Marks
Dec 2 at 15:39












up vote
3
down vote













Another option is to install the snap version of GIMP. I realize some folks don't like snaps, but this may be a more palatable solution for the casual Linux user.



sudo snap install gimp





share|improve this answer























  • You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 19:47






  • 1




    OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
    – dessert
    2 days ago















up vote
3
down vote













Another option is to install the snap version of GIMP. I realize some folks don't like snaps, but this may be a more palatable solution for the casual Linux user.



sudo snap install gimp





share|improve this answer























  • You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 19:47






  • 1




    OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
    – dessert
    2 days ago













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Another option is to install the snap version of GIMP. I realize some folks don't like snaps, but this may be a more palatable solution for the casual Linux user.



sudo snap install gimp





share|improve this answer














Another option is to install the snap version of GIMP. I realize some folks don't like snaps, but this may be a more palatable solution for the casual Linux user.



sudo snap install gimp






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago









Baptiste Candellier

1734




1734










answered Dec 2 at 15:46









rkeating

6391112




6391112












  • You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 19:47






  • 1




    OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
    – dessert
    2 days ago


















  • You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
    – user535733
    Dec 2 at 19:47






  • 1




    OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
    – dessert
    2 days ago
















You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
– user535733
Dec 2 at 19:47




You're right. Avoiding weird dependency conflicts is exactly one of the purposes of snaps.
– user535733
Dec 2 at 19:47




1




1




OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
– dessert
2 days ago




OK, and how do you install the snap version of GIMP?
– dessert
2 days ago










up vote
0
down vote













In addition to the accepted answer: If you have only default sources enabled and the latest package list (apt update) and still encounter such conflicts on basic packages like gimp, then report a bug. This is something, what should be fixed by the package maintainer and what probably is rather easy to fix for him. It also may affect more people than just you. Such bugs happen from time to time, but the maintainers need to know.



Of course you should make sure, that your configuration and package status is not the problem before, because if you e.g. have got gimp (or some of its dependencies) from a third-party repository, the ubuntu maintainers cannot help you.






share|improve this answer





















  • The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
    – user535733
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote













In addition to the accepted answer: If you have only default sources enabled and the latest package list (apt update) and still encounter such conflicts on basic packages like gimp, then report a bug. This is something, what should be fixed by the package maintainer and what probably is rather easy to fix for him. It also may affect more people than just you. Such bugs happen from time to time, but the maintainers need to know.



Of course you should make sure, that your configuration and package status is not the problem before, because if you e.g. have got gimp (or some of its dependencies) from a third-party repository, the ubuntu maintainers cannot help you.






share|improve this answer





















  • The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
    – user535733
    2 days ago













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









In addition to the accepted answer: If you have only default sources enabled and the latest package list (apt update) and still encounter such conflicts on basic packages like gimp, then report a bug. This is something, what should be fixed by the package maintainer and what probably is rather easy to fix for him. It also may affect more people than just you. Such bugs happen from time to time, but the maintainers need to know.



Of course you should make sure, that your configuration and package status is not the problem before, because if you e.g. have got gimp (or some of its dependencies) from a third-party repository, the ubuntu maintainers cannot help you.






share|improve this answer












In addition to the accepted answer: If you have only default sources enabled and the latest package list (apt update) and still encounter such conflicts on basic packages like gimp, then report a bug. This is something, what should be fixed by the package maintainer and what probably is rather easy to fix for him. It also may affect more people than just you. Such bugs happen from time to time, but the maintainers need to know.



Of course you should make sure, that your configuration and package status is not the problem before, because if you e.g. have got gimp (or some of its dependencies) from a third-party repository, the ubuntu maintainers cannot help you.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









allo

41917




41917












  • The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
    – user535733
    2 days ago


















  • The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
    – user535733
    2 days ago
















The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
– user535733
2 days ago




The second paragraph is very very important. Ubuntu's Continuous Integration (CI) system weeds out almost all of these kinds of packaging mistakes before they reach the repos. So if you discover one, be really really sure it's not your setup before filing the bug.
– user535733
2 days ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1097914%2fhow-do-i-resolve-package-conflicts-between-ubuntu-and-gimp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]