FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-10-2012, 06:14 AM
rikona
 
Default newer shotwell?

Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the 2
machines respectively.

(1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2 Lucid
machines?

(2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built version
for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems - is it safe
to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with NO problems?

Thanks...

--
Best regards,
rikona


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-10-2012, 06:30 AM
Lucio M Nicolosi
 
Default newer shotwell?

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:14 AM, rikona <rikona@sonic.net> wrote:
> Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
> other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the 2
> machines respectively.
>
> (1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2 Lucid
> machines?
>
> (2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built version
> for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems - is it safe
> to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with NO problems?
>
> Thanks...
>
> --
> Best regards,
> *rikona

Don't know why, but:

Ubuntu 12.04 ships with Shotwell 0.12

Perhaps you could install newer release from Yorba's PPA:

$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:yorba/ppa
$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get install shotwell

L.


--
Lucio M. Nicolosi, Eng.
Open Source Implementation
System and Applications
GNU/Linux

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-10-2012, 06:39 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default newer shotwell?

On 10/05/12 16:14, rikona wrote:

Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the 2
machines respectively.

(1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2 Lucid
machines?

(2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built version
for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems - is it safe
to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with NO problems?

Thanks...


Are both computer running 32-bit system or both running 64-bit system?

Are both running the same desktop - eg, both Gnome or whatever?

Are both computers using the same set of repositories?

Is one machine left-handed and the other right-handed?

(Nah....forget the last question :-) .)

BC

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:30 AM
Mika Suomalainen
 
Default newer shotwell?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

10.05.2012 09:14, rikona kirjoitti:
> Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
> other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the
> 2 machines respectively.
>
> (1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2
> Lucid machines?
>
> (2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built
> version for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems -
> is it safe to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with
> NO problems?
>
> Thanks...
>

1. I think that you are using different repositories or PPAs on both
Lucid machines. Maybe backports or some unofficial PPA from Launchpad.

2. If it's in backports, maybe enabling backports or adding some
unofficial PPA, like
https://launchpad.net/~flexiondotorg/+archive/shotwell [1] .

[1]:https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site%3Alaunchpad.net+shotwell+lucid&ie=ut f-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fi-FI:unofficial&client=__MOZ_APP_NAME__-a
First result from Google.

- --
[Mika Suomalainen](https://mkaysi.github.com/) ||
[gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
4DB53CFE82A46728](http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt) ||
[Why do I sign my
emails?](http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/WhyDoISignEmails.html) ||
[Please don't send
HTML.](http://mkaysi.github.com/articles/complaining/HTML.html) ||
[Please don't
toppost](http://mkaysi.github.com/articles/complaining/topposting.html) ||

[This signature](https://gist.github.com/2643070) ||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPq26NAAoJEE21PP6CpGcoPugP/3hj2EnGibKxHCLRfYuY8n7J
Da068+8S914xX6tzVPPVX7yi3rWs+m7Ooa+Pq8plNGd7jlFdIA 9h4Htb8XjjTTBF
tFEEoWu3EkqFjYztvuyzOqngmsH8DSdoeqjAz40R1agpnp5pY2 yMKfnN/O5o/FgK
GanPlOF5/7DBDtPyI49k2A2oowYnXvGb2tJm+MMlfnqBNGZW/otwWHXXeU2aexgD
Hcz/0OXLWY2vOdLurZG2/JmTRJiFs0JgQsQ/muHfhn9bIkK7uqpB6Y6EgbS2TLoU
IHNnkGL0OSEElGHYo2U0BgNAVBS2APgc6Vpwo2WypltRUj2wf7 grL2wm3/xLiOhT
7kylJM422M6opqnOH5/mxFBMa0MVaAYQzhuYE3TWMg1NYGvmX/T9VdhOupJJzy5z
nlKpxz6R7kF/Q7adgNehZ/cCe18lZYgi9i2StRCxgJLugiomtOn5T5NPa/kzaH2G
JbwrNE5GxbYcIqk0/19KetzDkZV4RmoR/Kp0YCePziR7aQpFs+fzgyNfndgxnIcm
upuc/DO1EVns8PZQLQuKhWHcwP21xf4Ev5gKqqNqeP/xmzn2k4rPCCV7bBQnMvbl
aVNVLaT4MuAXdmLNxBNs7ckoGAanb1JqpKbQcP6r/3iU6LSmU5X/wxbhgXCXvxMK
aCq+jGX/CDUIajvuZzou
=eSj3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Colin Law
 
Default newer shotwell?

On 10 May 2012 07:14, rikona <rikona@sonic.net> wrote:
> Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
> other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the 2
> machines respectively.
>
> (1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2 Lucid
> machines?
>
> (2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built version
> for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems - is it safe
> to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with NO problems?

As others have suggested you probably have different repositories
specified for the two machines. In a terminal run

apt-cache policy shotwell

to find out where they are coming from

Colin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-11-2012, 06:40 AM
rikona
 
Default newer shotwell?

Hello all,

First, thanks to Lucio, Basil, Mika, and Colin for the replies!

Thursday, May 10, 2012, 12:30:25 AM, Mika wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> 10.05.2012 09:14, rikona kirjoitti:
>> Running Lucid on 2 boxes, both updated. One has shotwell 0.7, the
>> other has 0.5. Synaptic shows these as the latest versions on the
>> 2 machines respectively.
>>
>> (1) Why is the 'latest' version in Synaptic different on the 2
>> Lucid machines?
>>
>> (2) What is the best way to get the latest shotwell pre-built
>> version for **Lucid**? Shotwell site warns of dependency problems -
>> is it safe to build the latest non-Ubuntu shotwell on Lucid - with
>> NO problems?
>>
>> Thanks...
>>

> 1. I think that you are using different repositories or PPAs on both
> Lucid machines. Maybe backports or some unofficial PPA from
> Launchpad.

That was indeed true. I THOUGHT I had set up both the same way, but we
all know how reliable 'thoughts' can be. :-)

> 2. If it's in backports, maybe enabling backports or adding some
> unofficial PPA, like
> https://launchpad.net/~flexiondotorg/+archive/shotwell [1] .

This one looks quite good - it is version 11, which is almost the
latest one. They also explain why 0.7 is the latest 'official' for
Lucid. They also hint at the risks of using the later builds, re video
problems. :-)

I'll grit my teeth and try it, though. :-)

> [1]:https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site%3Alaunchpad.net+shotwell+lucid&ie=ut f-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fi-FI:unofficial&client=__MOZ_APP_NAME__-a

The inclusion of launchpad.net in the search is the key - I didn't
think to do that when I was rummaging around.

Thanks to all for the help.

--

rikona

> - --
> [Mika Suomalainen](https://mkaysi.github.com/) ||
> [gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728](http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt) ||
> [Why do I sign my
> emails?](http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/WhyDoISignEmails.html) ||
> [Please don't send
> HTML.](http://mkaysi.github.com/articles/complaining/HTML.html) ||
> [Please don't
> toppost](http://mkaysi.github.com/articles/complaining/topposting.html) ||

> [This signature](https://gist.github.com/2643070) ||
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPq26NAAoJEE21PP6CpGcoPugP/3hj2EnGibKxHCLRfYuY8n7J
> Da068+8S914xX6tzVPPVX7yi3rWs+m7Ooa+Pq8plNGd7jlFdIA 9h4Htb8XjjTTBF
> tFEEoWu3EkqFjYztvuyzOqngmsH8DSdoeqjAz40R1agpnp5pY2 yMKfnN/O5o/FgK
> GanPlOF5/7DBDtPyI49k2A2oowYnXvGb2tJm+MMlfnqBNGZW/otwWHXXeU2aexgD
> Hcz/0OXLWY2vOdLurZG2/JmTRJiFs0JgQsQ/muHfhn9bIkK7uqpB6Y6EgbS2TLoU
> IHNnkGL0OSEElGHYo2U0BgNAVBS2APgc6Vpwo2WypltRUj2wf7 grL2wm3/xLiOhT
> 7kylJM422M6opqnOH5/mxFBMa0MVaAYQzhuYE3TWMg1NYGvmX/T9VdhOupJJzy5z
> nlKpxz6R7kF/Q7adgNehZ/cCe18lZYgi9i2StRCxgJLugiomtOn5T5NPa/kzaH2G
> JbwrNE5GxbYcIqk0/19KetzDkZV4RmoR/Kp0YCePziR7aQpFs+fzgyNfndgxnIcm
> upuc/DO1EVns8PZQLQuKhWHcwP21xf4Ev5gKqqNqeP/xmzn2k4rPCCV7bBQnMvbl
> aVNVLaT4MuAXdmLNxBNs7ckoGAanb1JqpKbQcP6r/3iU6LSmU5X/wxbhgXCXvxMK
> aCq+jGX/CDUIajvuZzou
> =eSj3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org