KDE Neon broken after upgrade; can't install packages

Help
, ,
1

Hello Friends :waving_hand:,

After a failed upgrade -over a year ago- I’ve had no time to fix it, especially that the system was (back then) able enough as it was.
For over a year, I’m welcomed after each boot with “Please install all available updates for your release before upgrading.” dialogue and I get only some packages upgrades.
This wasn’t good, but acceptable so far… Today it became unbearable! :sob:

Please, help me to take back control over my system :folded_hands:… Thank you very, very much in advance!

# cat /etc/os-release /etc/debian_version

PRETTY_NAME=“KDE neon 6.2”
NAME=“KDE neon”
VERSION_ID=“22.04”
VERSION=“6.2”
VERSION_CODENAME=jammy
ID=neon
ID_LIKE=“ubuntu debian”
HOME_URL=“https://neon.kde.org/”
SUPPORT_URL=“https://neon.kde.org/”
BUG_REPORT_URL=“https://bugs.kde.org/”
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL=“https://kde.org/privacypolicy/”
UBUNTU_CODENAME=jammy
LOGO=start-here-kde-neon

bookworm/sid

Today I wanted to install Inkscape and that’s how it went:

# apt install inkscape

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1
Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1
Investigating (0) inkscape:amd64 < none -> 0.92.5-1ubuntu1.1 @un pumN Ib >
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libcdr-0.1-1:amd64 < none @un H >
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libgc1c2:amd64 < none @un H > (>= 1:7.2d)
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 < none | 2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5 @un uH > (>= 2.22.0)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 0 as a solution to inkscape:amd64 9999
    Reinst Failed early because of libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common:amd64
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libgsl23:amd64 < none | 2.5+dfsg-6+deb10u1build0.20.04.1 @un uH > (>= 2.5)
  Considering libgsl23:amd64 0 as a solution to inkscape:amd64 9999
  Re-Instated libgslcblas0:amd64
  Re-Instated libgsl23:amd64
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libgtkspell0:amd64 < none @un H > (>= 2.0.10)
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libmagick++-6.q16-8:amd64 < none | 8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1ubuntu11.11 @un uH >
  Considering libmagick++-6.q16-8:amd64 1 as a solution to inkscape:amd64 9999
  Re-Instated libmagick++-6.q16-8:amd64
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libpoppler97:amd64 < none | 0.86.1-0ubuntu1.7 @un uH > (>= 0.86.1)
  Considering libpoppler97:amd64 0 as a solution to inkscape:amd64 9999
  Re-Instated libpoppler97:amd64
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libpotrace0:amd64 < none @un H >
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libvisio-0.1-1:amd64 < none @un H >
Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libwpg-0.3-3:amd64 < none @un H >
Done
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:
 inkscape : Depends: libcdr-0.1-1 but it is not installable
            Depends: libgc1c2 (>= 1:7.2d) but it is not installable
            Depends: libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 (>= 2.22.0) but it is not going to be installed
            Depends: libgtkspell0 (>= 2.0.10) but it is not installable
            Depends: libpotrace0 but it is not installable
            Depends: libvisio-0.1-1 but it is not installable
            Depends: libwpg-0.3-3 but it is not installable
            Recommends: libimage-magick-perl but it is not going to be installed
            Recommends: libwmf-bin but it is not installable
            Recommends: python-lxml but it is not going to be installed
            Recommends: python-numpy but it is not installable
            Recommends: python-scour but it is not installable
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

I’m also not able to install flatpak:

# apt install flatpak

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1
Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1
Investigating (0) flatpak:amd64 < none -> 1.6.5-0ubuntu0.5 @rc puN Ib >
Broken flatpak:amd64 Depends on libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 < none @un pH > (>= 2.22.0)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 0 as a solution to flatpak:amd64 9999
Done
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:
 flatpak : Depends: libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 (>= 2.22.0) but it is not installable
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

I get quite a message when trying to:

# apt install libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0

(the log is over 300 kB, so in full here: https://w87.eu/apt_install_libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0.txt )

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 3
Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 3
Investigating (0) libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 < none -> 2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5 @un puN Ib >
Broken libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 Depends on libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common:amd64 < 2.42.8+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3 @ii mK > (= 2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common:amd64 45 as a solution to libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 9997
Investigating (0) libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 < 2.42.8+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3 @ii mK Ib >
Broken libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 Breaks on libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 < none -> 2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5 @un puN Ib > (< 2.40.0+dfsg-6~)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 9997 as a solution to libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 448
  Removing libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 rather than change libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64
Investigating (0) libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mK Ib >
Broken libgtk-3-0:amd64 Depends on libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 < 2.42.8+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3 @ii mR > (>= 2.40.0)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 448 as a solution to libgtk-3-0:amd64 355
  Removing libgtk-3-0:amd64 rather than change libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64
Investigating (0) kde-config-gtk-style:amd64 < 4:6.2.0-0zneon+22.04+jammy+release+build3 @ii mK Ib >
Broken kde-config-gtk-style:amd64 Depends on libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mR > (>= 3.0.0)
  Considering libgtk-3-0:amd64 355 as a solution to kde-config-gtk-style:amd64 208
  Removing kde-config-gtk-style:amd64 rather than change libgtk-3-0:amd64
Investigating (0) qt5-gtk-platformtheme:amd64 < 5.15.14+p22.04+vrelease+git20240826.0223-0 @ii mK Ib >
Broken qt5-gtk-platformtheme:amd64 Depends on libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mR > (>= 3.9.10)
  Considering libgtk-3-0:amd64 355 as a solution to qt5-gtk-platformtheme:amd64 171
  Removing qt5-gtk-platformtheme:amd64 rather than change libgtk-3-0:amd64
Investigating (0) libscim8v5:amd64 < 1.4.18+git20211204-0.1 @ii mK Ib >
Broken libscim8v5:amd64 Depends on libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mR > (>= 3.9.12)
  Considering libgtk-3-0:amd64 355 as a solution to libscim8v5:amd64 103
  Removing libscim8v5:amd64 rather than change libgtk-3-0:amd64
Investigating (0) firefox:amd64 < 145.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1 @ii mK Ib >
Broken firefox:amd64 Depends on libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 < 2.42.8+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3 @ii mR > (>= 2.22.0)
  Considering libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64 448 as a solution to firefox:amd64 103
  Removing firefox:amd64 rather than change libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0:amd64
Investigating (0) kde-config-gtk-style-preview:amd64 < 4:6.2.0-0zneon+22.04+jammy+release+build3 @ii mK Ib >
Broken kde-config-gtk-style-preview:amd64 Depends on libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mR > (>= 3.0.0)
  Considering libgtk-3-0:amd64 355 as a solution to kde-config-gtk-style-preview:amd64 101
  Removing kde-config-gtk-style-preview:amd64 rather than change libgtk-3-0:amd64
Investigating (0) spice-vdagent:amd64 < 0.22.1-1 @ii mK Ib >
Broken spice-vdagent:amd64 Depends on libgtk-3-0:amd64 < 3.24.33-1ubuntu2.2 @ii mR > (>= 3.22)
  Considering libgtk-3-0:amd64 355 as a solution to spice-vdagent:amd64 99
  Removing spice-vdagent:amd64 rather than change libgtk-3-0:amd64

                              [...]

                  Recommends: plasma-discover but it is not going to be installed
                  Recommends: plasma-pa but it is not going to be installed
                  Recommends: powerdevil but it is not going to be installed
                  Recommends: systemsettings but it is not going to be installed
 sddm : Depends: qt6-declarative (>= 6.7.2) but it is not going to be installed
        Depends: qt6-base (>= 6.7.2) but it is not going to be installed
        Recommends: haveged but it is not installable
        Recommends: sddm-theme-debian-breeze but it is not installable or
                    sddm-theme
E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages.

How to resolve the situation, so I could install packages?
Once more — thank you very much in advance, for your help! :heart:

2

To be honest, and I hate to say it, but I think the only real recourse is to start over with a clean install. The 22.04 base stopped receiving Plasma updates shortly after the move to 24.04 in October 2024. Upgrades have not been tested or supported for something that is now this far out of date.

Add to that the fact that the Inkscape version that want to be installed here is for the even older (and EOL) 20.04

You might consider uninstalling Inkscape to see it that gets you any further, but I think things were broken going back to the migration from 20.04 to 22.04 three years ago.

Even if you can fix this one blocker here, I strongly suspect you will have many more problems like this to fight through, and still face a very strong chance for a failed upgrade to 24.04.

2 Likes
3

Thank you for response @claydoh
My system has a lot of development stuff set up (like databases, different PHP versions configurations, servers etc.)… I am aware that this is all backup-able, but I’ve also undergo such backup-and-restores (and there is really terrible amount of work and stress) and what’s worse, a whole team of people are depending on tasks I can perform in this environment. Not to mention my clients.
So reinstall solution is really the last choice, as long as there is at least a small spark of hope for something else.

What gives me hope is that aside of package management, everything works correctly.
And regarding packages, it’s not really about Inkscape. This was the last straw, but the issue is related to libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0. It affects package installation (many desktop-apps packages).

Any other suggestions :red_question_mark:
Something that would at least bring more clarity about the situation???
Please tell me, where can I find the full, default list of Neon 22.04 repositories?

4

KDE neon is not the right distro for you/your use case.

There is no thorough review of the complete software stack to guarantee a rock solid day-to-day experience.

2 Likes
6

@rrpeak That’s evident. This doesn’t change the situation anyway.
Maybe you can tell me where can I find the full, default list of Neon 22.04 repositories?

7

I think your sources are probably fine.
/etc/apt/sources.list
And
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/neon.list

should point to Jammy sources.

What’s probably the problem is the apt preferences file(s) that keep things in check.

You may have a stale config for Focal messing things up. But the other issue is that I believe that the overrides in the preferences files are not static, and do change occasionally. So we might fix the current blocker, but it might not fix all the ones you don’t see. Or for for upgrading to 24 04, which is the only way to get any Plasma updates.

I suggested temporarily uninstalling Inkscape to see if this alone might allow you to update the Ubuntu parts, for any security patches etc, and get apt into a more stable place. This doesn’t remove user files or settings.

Next, look in /etc/apt/preferences.d for any files with ‘neon’ in their names. Which ones do you have?

8

Firstly, I would state that I use Manjaro (Testing) for my home desktop/HTPC server machine, it has proven quite reliable over the last 9 years - so I will share with you my strategy to deal with the situation, and I use a rolling distribution with far more regular (though often less disruptive) upgrades…

However, I would not use KDE Neon - which I view more as an experimental desktop than a serious work environment… You should look for something better; the main issues I faced during the last 9 years is seeing new KDE Plasma versions incoming with issues. Manjaro held back those newer releases, whilst Neon users get them piped through…

Meanwhile, Linux Mint offered a supremely stable desktop environment for years, but rather too stable for my use case at that time (before Flatpaks were available).

  • From Linux Mint, I learned to use Timeshift and Back-in-time.

Timeshift means that, if you have a serious issue following a major upgrade, you can ‘wind it back’ and deal with the issue immediately. I suggest going forward that you use Timeshift to allow you to avoid this kind of issue in the future.

Back-in-Time means that I have incremental backups of all my personal data (and hidden settings/setup files) so that I can copy back all of this good stuff at any time - this is vital to get past the spectre of hardware failure or other disasters. If my hardware fails, I can install to a new machine tomorrow and restore everything much more quickly than a simple clean install - and it’s much cleaner also than restoring an old system with all of the old files as I can selectively import them as I install.

My suggestion to you would be just this - use back-in-time to get a backup, make sure you export a packagelist, then do a clean install, importing only what’s necessary and installing only what you still deem relevant.

Using a good backup, it takes me about an hour to get the system 95% setup, and have most of the ‘creases’ ironed out within the next few days with odd jobs - like tweaks to scripts, and changes to conky needed to accommodate the changes in hardware/network details.

  • If the workflow is critical and downtime is unacceptable, you need to move to a more robust environment rather than relying on KDE Neon alone…
9

@claydoh

# cat /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/neon.list
deb [arch=amd64 signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/postgresql.gpg] http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ jammy-pgdg main 

deb http://archive.neon.kde.org/user/ jammy main 
deb-src http://archive.neon.kde.org/user/ jammy main

Is it all there should be? Nothing’s missing?

I suggested temporarily uninstalling Inkscape to see if this alone might allow you to update the Ubuntu parts, for any security patches etc, and get apt into a more stable place. This doesn’t remove user files or settings.

Inkscape is not installed. I’ve shown it as an example of not being able to install desktop-apps packages.

The issue is related to libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 (wrong version installed?) which in turn blocks install/update of all the other packages. I don’t know whether this is the only blocker, but it appears to be the main one (at least as of now).

The link I’ve posted earlier ( w87.eu/apt_install_libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0.txt ) shows that all the blocked updates seem to be directly related to package libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0

Next, look in /etc/apt/preferences.d for any files with ‘neon’ in their names. Which ones do you have?

# dir /etc/apt/preferences.d/
50-neon-ubuntu-release-upgrader  99-jammy-overrides  99-neon-base-files  google-chrome  org-kde-neon-net-launchpad-ppa-mozillateam-pin

So three matching… What about them?

@ben2talk I know all too well, that KDE Neon is not an adequate choice for me!
This is a long, tangled and boring story of how I ended up with this… Long-story-short: it was supposed to be temporarily solution for me, but I had no time to move and so it was constantly pushed „for later”. I still have severe shortages of time, so I’ve struggled along from a quckfix to a quickfix and so on.

Same about backup — I do make it of course, but a fully automatized and quick-to-restore system is something I simply lack time to obtain. Nonetheless thank you for your suggestions!

And since you mentioned it… I’ll most likely choose Debian Stable, because:

  1. Most of the distros I’ve ever used were debianoids;
  2. I prefer apt (not to mention Nala) over -lets say- pacman for many reasons;
  3. I admin many VPS & dedicated servers and most of them use Debian.

But I am considering Manjaro. I must admit that a rolling-release is something that I would just love to have! For this reason I guess Debian Testing could be interesting.
Do you by any chance have experience allowing you to compare these two distros or maybe migration between?

10

Yes, for your neon sources. Plus you will have your Ubuntu sources as well, for the OS and non-KDE related items in the file /etc/apt/sources.list Post the contents of that file.

Plus any PPAs or other external sources, like as the postgres repo you added to your neon repo file, but usually reside in individual files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d.

yes, I somehow read that as something that was ‘stuck’ and preventing updates. :confused:
BUT:

Not necessarily. The Inkscape version wanting to be installed is older than what is in 22.04 Jammy and thus wants a different version of files than what Jammy provides.

Investigating (0) inkscape:amd64 < none → 0.92.5-1ubuntu1.1 @un pumN Ib

And another dep doesn’t even exist in Ubuntu releases past Focal 20.04:

Broken inkscape:amd64 Depends on libgsl23:amd64 < none | 2.5+dfsg-6+deb10u1build0.20.04.1 @un uH > (>= 2.5)

So let’s look at your sources.list file

And

apt policy inkscape

apt policy flatpack

apt policy libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0

And what other PPAs or sources you have:

ls -1 /etc/apt/sources.list.d

Looking to see if there were older versions of these files, which could be ‘pinning’ something that might cause the Focal sources to be preferred somehow over the Jammy ones? Not likley as the 20.04 files iirc included focal in the file name for the overrides file.

I am hoping you just have a mangled sources.list and just have a mix of Focal and Jammy ones in the file.

11

I used Linux Mint, with back-in-time snapshots… I installed Manjaro Cinnamon, imported my configs and it just took a couple of hours to have everything back to ‘normal’ except with the better packaging (for me).

Then I went with KDE Plasma, again - most settings could be imported but obviously the new desktop needed tweaking.

It’s much less painful than you imagine.

12

@claydoh I’ve shown you the output of cat /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/neon.list, that is both files.
In /etc/apt/sources.list I have only the postgresql repo. So it seems I correctly thought there are repos missing. What Ubuntu repos should be there?

Plus any PPAs or other external sources, like as the postgres repo you added to your neon repo file, but usually reside in individual files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d

I know and I hate this solution (individual files). I liked it better having full list of repos in one file.

BUT, when doing apt update I’ve had:

[...]
Hit:14 http://deb.volian.org/volian scar InRelease                              
Get:15 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal-security/restricted amd64 Components [212 B]
Get:16 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal-security/main amd64 Components [74,8 kB]
[...]

so I’ve checked /etc/apt/ and there are also files /etc/apt/sources.list.distUpgrade and /etc/apt/sources.list.save, each containing:

deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal-security main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal-updates main restricted universe multiverse

apt policy inkscape

inkscape:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.92.5-1ubuntu1.1
  Version table:
     0.92.5-1ubuntu1.1 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal-updates/universe amd64 Packages

apt policy flatpack

N: Unable to locate package flatpack

apt policy libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0

libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5
  Version table:
     2.40.0+dfsg-3ubuntu0.5 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal-updates/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal-security/main amd64 Packages

ls -1 /etc/apt/sources.list.d

alessandro-strada-ubuntu-ppa-jammy.list
archive_uri-http_archive_ubuntu_com_ubuntu_-jammy.list
archive_uri-http_security_ubuntu_com_ubuntu-jammy.list
brave-browser-release.sources
docker.list
elastic-8.x.list
jonaski-ubuntu-strawberry-jammy.list
kubuntu-ppa-ubuntu-backports-jammy.list
neon.list
neon.list.distUpgrade
neon.list.save
ondrej-ubuntu-php-focal.list.distUpgrade
ondrej-ubuntu-php-focal.list.save
ondrej-ubuntu-php-jammy.list
org.kde.neon.net.launchpad.ppa.mozillateam.list
org.kde.neon.net.launchpad.ppa.mozillateam.list.distUpgrade
pgomes-ubuntu-amarok-focal.list
pgomes-ubuntu-amarok-focal.list.distUpgrade
pgomes-ubuntu-amarok-focal.list.save
php.list
php.list.distUpgrade
php.list.save
preinstalled-pool.list
preinstalled-pool.list.distUpgrade
preinstalled-pool.list.save
redis.list
symfony-cli.list
symfony-cli.list.distUpgrade
symfony-cli.list.save
teams.list
teams.list.distUpgrade
teams.list.save
virtualbox.list
volian-archive-scar-unstable.list
vscode.list.distUpgrade
vscode.list.save
vscode.sources
winehq-bookworm.sources
yarn.list

It appears to be more-or-less the case.

13

@claydoh Can not edit anymore :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:
I guess I should just comment-out focal repos and add

deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ jammy main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ jammy-security main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ jammy-updates main restricted universe multiverse

to continue the upgrade, right?
Something more or something else I should do?

14

Odd

Yes, copy the sources.list.save contents to the sources.list file, edit it to show ‘jammy’ as you show. Make sure the lines don’t start with '#'

Delete the .DistUpgrade file. And the .save files.

You can delete or move any of the other .save and .DistUpgrade files, as well.

Any file with .save or .distUpgrade should have the contents commented out, and thus not used.

I don’t know how you have any of the main Ubuntu focal sources being used at all, unless you have them in one of the other files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d for some reason.

With only the postgres repo (for Jammy) in your sources.list, you should be seeing “not found” or similar errors for amost all applications.

15

Now, as to upgrading to Noble, with a set of external sources that, there is a higher chance for breakage, especially for anything that upgrades something to be more current than what’s in 24.04.

It might be fine, but if things do go south there won’t be a way to go back, really.

Also:

These concern me. If they are duplicates of your sources.list file, you’ll want to remove them if the contents are not commented out.

Then there are all the other sources and PPAs here. Are they all OK, or are they mangled like your main sources.list?