I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
my monitors. I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies. After a little research,
it was suggested to install via flatpak instead, which I did today.
After a little detective work and adding a file, I was finally able to
save it to favorites for easy access from the dock (I guess you can't
natively save flatpak apps to the dock normally?). Anyway, now I am
unable to install the "executables" that the program needs. It says
specifically where to unzip the files (into the bin folder), but no
matter what I try, the program Dispcal won't see these Angyll
executables. I've placed the Angyll folder in home, /, all sorts of
places and it's like it's invisible to Dispcal. I've even tried
removing the executables within the unzipped bin folder and placing them
in various places, but the program still won't see them. This Angyll
zip is what is recommended for Linux. Before I go to the Dispcal forum,
register, and post, I would welcome any thoughts here. Seems like it
may be a permissions problem of sorts, but I don't know. I also tried
placing the Agyll folder and even its contents within the flatpak
folder, but still invisible to the program. Thanks in advance. I DID
have trouble installing this program in prior Ubuntu versions, probably
for similar reasons, but its been so long ago that all I remember was
the installation was not easy.

On 9/14/2022 4:53 PM, wAYNE wrote:
> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of my monitors.  I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.  So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.  After a little research, it was suggested to install via flatpak instead, which I did today. After a little detective work and adding a file, I was finally able to save it to favorites for easy access from the dock (I guess you can't natively save flatpak apps to the dock normally?).  Anyway, now I am unable to install the "executables" that the program needs.  It says specifically where to unzip the files (into the bin folder), but no matter what I try, the program Dispcal won't see these Angyll executables.  I've placed the Angyll folder in home, /, all sorts of places and it's like it's invisible to Dispcal.  I've even tried removing the executables within the unzipped bin folder and placing them in various places,
> but the program still won't see them.  This Angyll zip is what is recommended for Linux.  Before I go to the Dispcal forum, register, and post, I would welcome any thoughts here.  Seems like it may be a permissions problem of sorts, but I don't know.  I also tried placing the Agyll folder and even its contents within the flatpak folder, but still invisible to the program.  Thanks in advance.  I DID have trouble installing this program in prior Ubuntu versions, probably for similar reasons, but its been so long ago that all I remember was the installation was not easy.
Without doing the steps you mention, the unzip probably revealed
files with 644 (execute bit not set), when 755 would be executable
and get picked up in the bin.
ls -al bin # note the perms of the files in the bin
cd bin # enter this bin to do the work
file someprog # it'll say it is an ELF, a binary executable
chmod 755 someprog # prepare to be executed
./someprog # Run someprog, only from the current working directory
someprog # Evaluate the PATH and find the first instance of someprog and run it.
# Note that "." is not always in the PATH, for insecurity reasons.
# Specifying the path explicitly, removes the doubt factor "./someprog"
CHMOD accepts numbers, like 755, but things like +X or -X can be used
to add the execute bit or subtract the execute bit. There are also
letters indicating user, group, or world. You can craft a specific symbolic
instance of CHMOD to do the job, instead of hitting it with 755. Using 755
forces the pattern, for better or worse. A surgeon can carve a turkey breast
with the +X or -X thing instead. Using chmod 755 * is usually the wrong thing
to do, but... who has not done that.
$ file dispcal
dispcal: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
BuildID[sha1]=ae9135b4552d617c083cb12a7ac0df7dec72f920, not stripped
$ file kodak2ti3
kodak2ti3: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
BuildID[sha1]=af951d3b31be8bdcc2adaa485458a06c043d8e6d, not stripped
You can see the original perms intent in this picture. but there will be
no graeme:graeme on your machine, so the user and owner group could be coerced to
wayne:wayne instead. And maybe in the process, your umask became engaged and
the files ended up 644. And they need a little selective +X activity.
https://i.postimg.cc/hGsgXwH5/perms.gif
Paul

On 9/14/22 13:53, wAYNE wrote:
> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
> my monitors. I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
> So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
> center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.

No; not true. I don't see that package listed in the default 22.04
repositories anywhere. So, can't be in the software center. And if it
were in there, there's no chance it would have unmet dependencies.
That's not how apt package manager works. It literally handles package
dependencies. You must have added some weird 3rd party repos.

On 9/14/22 13:53, wAYNE wrote:
> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
> my monitors. I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
> So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
> center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.

No; not true. I don't see that package listed in the default 22.04
repositories anywhere. So, can't be in the software center. And if it
were in there, there's no chance it would have unmet dependencies.
That's not how apt package manager works. It literally handles package
dependencies. You must have added some weird 3rd party repos.

stepore wrote:
> On 9/14/22 13:53, wAYNE wrote:
>> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
>> my monitors.  I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
>>    So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
>> center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.
>
> No; not true. I don't see that package listed in the default 22.04
> repositories anywhere. So, can't be in the software center. And if it
> were in there, there's no chance it would have unmet dependencies.
> That's not how apt package manager works. It literally handles package
> dependencies. You must have added some weird 3rd party repos.

DisplayCAL 3.8.9.3 released 2019-12-14
https://hub.displaycal.net/

Get DisplayCAL
https://displaycal.net/#download

DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL

DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/

"It’s already broken on every distribution that has dropped Python 2"

DisplayCAL Python 3 Project
https://github.com/eoyilmaz/displaycal-py3

Andrei Z. wrote:
> stepore wrote:
>> On 9/14/22 13:53, wAYNE wrote:
>>> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
>>> my monitors.  I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
>>>    So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
>>> center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.
>>
>> No; not true. I don't see that package listed in the default 22.04
>> repositories anywhere. So, can't be in the software center. And if it
>> were in there, there's no chance it would have unmet dependencies.
>> That's not how apt package manager works. It literally handles package
>> dependencies. You must have added some weird 3rd party repos.
>
> DisplayCAL 3.8.9.3 released 2019-12-14
> https://hub.displaycal.net/
>
> Get DisplayCAL
> https://displaycal.net/#download
>
> DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
> https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL
>
> DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
> https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/
>
>
> "It’s already broken on every distribution that has dropped Python 2"
>
> DisplayCAL Python 3 Project
> https://github.com/eoyilmaz/displaycal-py3
>
>

Additionally to OP are you use X11 or Wayland? Note on this page:

<https://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Installing_Linux.html>

"Installing the software on Linux with X11". The default display server
is now Wayland...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 9/15/22 8:38 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>
> Additionally to OP are you use X11 or Wayland? Note on this page:
>
> <https://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Installing_Linux.html>
>
> "Installing the software on Linux with X11". The default display server
> is now Wayland...

X11. Yes, I read the info there, but I'm not sure how to implement:

"You will also have to configure your $PATH environment variable to give
access to the executables from your command line environment."

Right now, I have the Argyll folder unzipped in home. Displaycal
doesn't show it or any of its contained folders, such as bin which has
the executables.

On 9/15/22 1:19 AM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>
>
> DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
> https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL
Yes, this is the one I am using now.
>
> DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
> https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/
As it says there, unfortunately, there are no good, free replacements.
Even after I did my initial upgrade from 18.04 to 22.04 on the desktop a
couple of weeks ago, the program will worked, so even after the fresh
install of 22.04 that I now have for the desktop, I should still be able
to get it to find the Agryll executables files. There is a note about
installing in Linux at their site but I am not sure how to do this from
the command line so any thoughts welcome: "You will also have to
configure your $PATH environment variable to give access to the
executables from your command line environment."

On 9/14/22 11:04 PM, stepore wrote:
> On 9/14/22 13:53, wAYNE wrote:
>> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations of
>> my monitors.  I had it installed and running before my upgrade to 22.04.
>>    So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the software
>> center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.
>
> No; not true. I don't see that package listed in the default 22.04
> repositories anywhere. So, can't be in the software center. And if it
> were in there, there's no chance it would have unmet dependencies.
> That's not how apt package manager works. It literally handles package
> dependencies. You must have added some weird 3rd party repos.
My apologies. You were correct, it is NOT in the default repositories.
I had initially tried to install it from the most recent DEB which
brings up the install screen. Of course, then it wouldn't install
because of the missing dependencies.

On 9/14/22 10:02 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 4:53 PM, wAYNE wrote:
>> I have always used a program called Dispcal to do color calibrations
>> of my monitors.  I had it installed and running before my upgrade to
>> 22.04.  So, after the upgrade, first tried installing it from the
>> software center and had a bunch of unmet dependencies.  After a little
>> research, it was suggested to install via flatpak instead, which I did
>> today. After a little detective work and adding a file, I was finally
>> able to save it to favorites for easy access from the dock (I guess
>> you can't natively save flatpak apps to the dock normally?).  Anyway,
>> now I am unable to install the "executables" that the program needs.
>> It says specifically where to unzip the files (into the bin folder),
>> but no matter what I try, the program Dispcal won't see these Angyll
>> executables.  I've placed the Angyll folder in home, /, all sorts of
>> places and it's like it's invisible to Dispcal.  I've even tried
>> removing the executables within the unzipped bin folder and placing
>> them in various places, but the program still won't see them.  This
>> Angyll zip is what is recommended for Linux.  Before I go to the
>> Dispcal forum, register, and post, I would welcome any thoughts here.
>> Seems like it may be a permissions problem of sorts, but I don't
>> know.  I also tried placing the Agyll folder and even its contents
>> within the flatpak folder, but still invisible to the program.  Thanks
>> in advance.  I DID have trouble installing this program in prior
>> Ubuntu versions, probably for similar reasons, but its been so long
>> ago that all I remember was the installation was not easy.
>
> Without doing the steps you mention, the unzip probably revealed
> files with 644 (execute bit not set), when 755 would be executable
> and get picked up in the bin.
>
>    ls -al bin           # note the perms of the files in the bin
>    cd bin               # enter this bin to do the work
>    file someprog        # it'll say it is an ELF, a binary executable
>    chmod 755 someprog   # prepare to be executed
>    ./someprog           # Run someprog, only from the current working
> directory
>    someprog             # Evaluate the PATH and find the first instance
> of someprog and run it.
>                         # Note that "." is not always in the PATH, for
> insecurity reasons.
>                         # Specifying the path explicitly, removes the
> doubt factor "./someprog"
>
> CHMOD accepts numbers, like 755, but things like +X or -X can be used
> to add the execute bit or subtract the execute bit. There are also
> letters indicating user, group, or world. You can craft a specific symbolic
> instance of CHMOD to do the job, instead of hitting it with 755. Using 755
> forces the pattern, for better or worse. A surgeon can carve a turkey
> breast
> with the +X or -X thing instead. Using   chmod 755 *   is usually the
> wrong thing
> to do, but... who has not done that.
>
> $ file dispcal
>
> dispcal: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
> dynamically linked,
>          interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
>          BuildID[sha1]=ae9135b4552d617c083cb12a7ac0df7dec72f920, not
> stripped
>
> $ file kodak2ti3
>
> kodak2ti3: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
> dynamically linked,
>            interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
>            BuildID[sha1]=af951d3b31be8bdcc2adaa485458a06c043d8e6d, not
> stripped
>
> You can see the original perms intent in this picture. but there will be
> no graeme:graeme on your machine, so the user and owner group could be
> coerced to
> wayne:wayne instead. And maybe in the process, your umask became engaged
> and
> the files ended up 644. And they need a little selective +X activity.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/hGsgXwH5/perms.gif
>
>    Paul
Sorry, I wasn't sure how to do this. I read it several times. For one
thing, I wasn't certain how to view the "perms" like you did. What I
ended up doing was right clicking and then looking at properties and
permissions. If anything was other than read only, I changed them all
to read/ write.
Isn't chmod +x something done if we want to make a program executable?
The way I always did it was to simply right click, permissions, then
choosing allow executing as a program. I did that with the executables
in BIN. I also tried the chmod 755 * applied to the BIN folder as well,
but neither seemed to do it. What I did find from the site for Linux
installations with X11 was this: You will also have to configure your
$PATH environment variable to give access to the executables from your
command line environment. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do this.

wAYNE wrote:
> On 9/15/22 1:19 AM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>> DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
>> https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL
>
> Yes, this is the one I am using now.
>
>>
>> DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
>> https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/
>
> As it says there, unfortunately, there are no good, free replacements.
> Even after I did my initial upgrade from 18.04 to 22.04 on the desktop a
> couple of weeks ago, the program will worked, so even after the fresh
> install of 22.04 that I now have for the desktop, I should still be able
> to get it to find the Agryll executables files.  There is a note about
> installing in Linux at their site but I am not sure how to do this from
> the command line so any thoughts welcome: "You will also have to
> configure your $PATH environment variable to give access to the
> executables from your command line environment."

How to Add a Directory to PATH in Linux [Quick Tip]

https://itsfoss.com/add-directory-to-path-linux/

On 9/15/22 12:27 PM, Andrei Z. wrote:
> wAYNE wrote:
>> On 9/15/22 1:19 AM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
>>> https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL
>>
>> Yes, this is the one I am using now.
>>
>>>
>>> DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
>>> https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/
>>
>>
>> As it says there, unfortunately, there are no good, free replacements.
>> Even after I did my initial upgrade from 18.04 to 22.04 on the desktop
>> a couple of weeks ago, the program will worked, so even after the
>> fresh install of 22.04 that I now have for the desktop, I should still
>> be able to get it to find the Agryll executables files.  There is a
>> note about installing in Linux at their site but I am not sure how to
>> do this from the command line so any thoughts welcome: "You will also
>> have to configure your $PATH environment variable to give access to
>> the executables from your command line environment."
>
> How to Add a Directory to PATH in Linux [Quick Tip]
>
> https://itsfoss.com/add-directory-to-path-linux/
>
>
Ok, so I have the Aryll folder in the home directory. I opened a
terminal and did this:
export PATH=$PATH:/home/wayne/Argyll_V2.3.1/bin
When I opened the program (Displaycal) and directed it to load the Aryll
executables, it still fails to even see the Aryll folder.

wAYNE wrote:
> On 9/15/22 12:27 PM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>> wAYNE wrote:
>>> On 9/15/22 1:19 AM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DisplayCAL—Linux Apps on Flathub
>>>> https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.displaycal.DisplayCAL
>>>
>>> Yes, this is the one I am using now.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DisplayCAL is dead, time to move on, what alternative you choosed?
>>>> https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/displaycal-is-dead-time-to-move-on-what-alternative-you-choosed/
>>>
>>>
>>> As it says there, unfortunately, there are no good, free
>>> replacements. Even after I did my initial upgrade from 18.04 to 22.04
>>> on the desktop a couple of weeks ago, the program will worked, so
>>> even after the fresh install of 22.04 that I now have for the
>>> desktop, I should still be able to get it to find the Agryll
>>> executables files.  There is a note about installing in Linux at
>>> their site but I am not sure how to do this from the command line so
>>> any thoughts welcome: "You will also have to configure your $PATH
>>> environment variable to give access to the executables from your
>>> command line environment."
>>
>> How to Add a Directory to PATH in Linux [Quick Tip]
>>
>> https://itsfoss.com/add-directory-to-path-linux/
>>
>>
>
> Ok, so I have the Aryll folder in the home directory.  I opened a
> terminal and did this:
>
> export PATH=$PATH:/home/wayne/Argyll_V2.3.1/bin
>
> When I opened the program (Displaycal) and directed it to load the Aryll
> executables, it still fails to even see the Aryll folder.

If you are using Flatpak

Flatpak - ArchWiki

3.11 View sandbox permissions of application
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Flatpak#View_sandbox_permissions_of_application

3.12 Override sandbox permissions of applications

On 9/15/22 1:37 PM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>
>
> If you are using Flatpak
>
> Flatpak - ArchWiki
>
> 3.11 View sandbox permissions of application
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Flatpak#View_sandbox_permissions_of_application
>
>
> 3.12 Override sandbox permissions of applications
>

That did it! Using sudo flatpak override --filesystem=home

Now the folder and needed files have been seen and loaded into the
program!

I really appreciate this. I've been scratching my head trying to figure
this out since early yesterday.

This is why I hate doing fresh installs instead of upgrades. With my
upgrade, at some point in the past, I probably already did something
like this and long since forgot since it was 5 years since my last fresh
install. So, after the upgrade, it still worked, but after fresh
install, and now using something new- flatpak- it would not.

Thanks again! That was step 2 and a BIG step forward.. Now the final
step will be to see how the new color calibration goes.

On 9/15/22 1:56 PM, wAYNE wrote:
> On 9/15/22 1:37 PM, Andrei Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you are using Flatpak
>>
>> Flatpak - ArchWiki
>>
>> 3.11 View sandbox permissions of application
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Flatpak#View_sandbox_permissions_of_application
>>
>>
>> 3.12 Override sandbox permissions of applications
>>
>
> That did it!  Using sudo flatpak override --filesystem=home
>
> Now the folder and needed files have been seen and loaded into the program!
>
> I really appreciate this.  I've been scratching my head trying to figure
> this out since early yesterday.
>
> This is why I hate doing fresh installs instead of upgrades.  With my
> upgrade, at some point in the past, I probably already did something
> like this and long since forgot since it was 5 years since my last fresh
> install.  So, after the upgrade, it still worked, but after fresh
> install, and now using something new- flatpak- it would not.
>
> Thanks again!  That was step 2 and a BIG step forward.. Now the final
> step will be to see how the new color calibration goes.
>
Calibration complete! Not sure about the accuracy as that's a topic for
another group, but the instrument and software completed without issue.
I did have to use the same override command when I moved the profile
file from the flatpak folder to home in order for my monitor to be able
to use it.

On 9/15/22 07:22, wAYNE wrote:
> My apologies. You were correct, it is NOT in the default repositories.
> I had initially tried to install it from the most recent DEB which
> brings up the install screen. Of course, then it wouldn't install
> because of the missing dependencies.

Ya; now that tracks.

Glad you got it working with flatpack.

On 9/15/22 10:17 PM, stepore wrote:
>
>
> Glad you got it working with flatpack.

Me too! It of course took some effort and detective work, but all good
again.

Some of the websites I came across seemed to indicate that a version of
the program may appear in the Ubuntu repositories at some point, but I
sort of doubt it since it's not updated anymore.