Over the past several months, I've grown amused over how updates for one program can adversely impact another.
Especially in context with internet browsers Firefox, Chromium, and Konqueror. Won't go into specifics there because I appreciate this is not the place for "that", other than to say I've been watching a ping pong game where updates to "A" introduce problems to "B", breaking specific functionality...which inspires a fix, that in turn the fix to "B" wreaks havoc upon "A", and the cycle repeats.
I guess that "independence" of the open source model has it's own unfortunate consequences?
Specific to graphics software. I've been installing on separate machines, various vintages of Krita, versions 4.4.2. 4.4.8, and 5.0.2 without major difficulty ( other than the Gmic issue with 5.0.2)
When installing those,... I always notice a transaction listing claiming to remove an inkscape file. evidently it replaces said file with an updated equivalent, because my old inkscape app continues to function.
However just this past weekend, I noticed that an update for inkscape was being offered. I believe the update was from my original install of version 1.0.2-3 to a new offering of 1.1.2-3+b1
So, I updated Inkscape, and thereafter the synaptic package manager refused to install Krita (any vintage) on my machine, citing that I must fix broken packages, before proceeding.
So, clearly the inkscape update fluxxored my system in some way to prohibit the install of Krita (on new media that had never previously had Krita as a resident program)
And attempts to fix broken packages were stonewalled. I eventually ended up having to reformat, and do a completely fresh install, forgoing the update to inkscape in order to install Krita 4.4.2 Which worked fine
But my questions, is this type of conflict between programs common place? Is this the reason many of you have become advocates of "flat paks" and "AppImages"....to put an end to such hijinks? I think I'm about to become a believer
Especially in context with internet browsers Firefox, Chromium, and Konqueror. Won't go into specifics there because I appreciate this is not the place for "that", other than to say I've been watching a ping pong game where updates to "A" introduce problems to "B", breaking specific functionality...which inspires a fix, that in turn the fix to "B" wreaks havoc upon "A", and the cycle repeats.
I guess that "independence" of the open source model has it's own unfortunate consequences?
Specific to graphics software. I've been installing on separate machines, various vintages of Krita, versions 4.4.2. 4.4.8, and 5.0.2 without major difficulty ( other than the Gmic issue with 5.0.2)
When installing those,... I always notice a transaction listing claiming to remove an inkscape file. evidently it replaces said file with an updated equivalent, because my old inkscape app continues to function.
However just this past weekend, I noticed that an update for inkscape was being offered. I believe the update was from my original install of version 1.0.2-3 to a new offering of 1.1.2-3+b1
So, I updated Inkscape, and thereafter the synaptic package manager refused to install Krita (any vintage) on my machine, citing that I must fix broken packages, before proceeding.
So, clearly the inkscape update fluxxored my system in some way to prohibit the install of Krita (on new media that had never previously had Krita as a resident program)
And attempts to fix broken packages were stonewalled. I eventually ended up having to reformat, and do a completely fresh install, forgoing the update to inkscape in order to install Krita 4.4.2 Which worked fine
But my questions, is this type of conflict between programs common place? Is this the reason many of you have become advocates of "flat paks" and "AppImages"....to put an end to such hijinks? I think I'm about to become a believer