Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

dhave · 2007-11-28 06:51:50

Every time I run pacman -Syu, pacman wants to update firefox to 2.0.0.10-2, even though I've already updated.

When I query with pacman -Q firefox, it reports that firefox has *not* been updated but remains at 2.0.0.10-1. I can't really tell much from Help / About, which reports a Gecko build date of Nov. 27. Since I think both revisions came out on the same day, I don't know if I'm running -1 or -2.

How can I stop this strange behavior?

Thanks.

Last edited by dhave (2007-11-28 07:02:28)

moose jaw · 2007-11-28 07:08:55

I can verify this same problem on my machine. Did a pacman upgrade to 2.0.0.10-2, but on querying pacman afterwards, it says I'm at 2.0.0.10-1, and subsequent runs of pacman -Su want to upgrade me to -2.

JaDa · 2007-11-28 07:10:13

confirm the bug. Same here too!

long time didn't see those bugs. And now twice first "rxvt-unicode" and now "firefox"! Must be some new packager there ......

dhave · 2007-11-28 07:13:14

JaDa wrote:

confirm the bug. Same here too!
long time didn't see those bugs. And now twice first "rxvt-unicode" and now "firefox"! Must be some new packager there ......

Yeah, I had the problem with rxvt-unicode, too, though it finally went away.

MrWeatherbee · 2007-11-28 09:43:06

dhave wrote:

Every time I run pacman -Syu, pacman wants to update firefox to 2.0.0.10-2, even though I've already updated.
When I query with pacman -Q firefox, it reports that firefox has *not* been updated but remains at 2.0.0.10-1. I can't really tell much from Help / About, which reports a Gecko build date of Nov. 27. Since I think both revisions came out on the same day, I don't know if I'm running -1 or -2.
How can I stop this strange behavior?
Thanks.

Here is what is happening to me:

resolving dependencies... done.
looking for inter-conflicts... done.

Targets: firefox-2.0.0.10-2  

Total Package Size:   9.36 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] 
checking package integrity... done.
cleaning up... done.
(1/1) checking for file conflicts                   [#########################################] 100%
(1/1) upgrading firefox                             [#########################################] 100%

Note that nothing got downloaded ... so the installed version after this download failure will correctly show that I am still at version 2.0.0.10-1:

pacman -Qi firefox
Name           : firefox
Version        : 2.0.0.10-1
...

If a pacman query showed anything other than version 2.0.0.10-1, then I'd have two problems instead of just one.

Finally, just as more verification of the weirdness, the pacman logs show this after a successful upgrade to v2.0.0.10-1 and two 'phantom' upgrades to v2.0.0.10-2:

[2007-11-27 21:11] synchronizing package lists
[2007-11-27 21:11] starting full system upgrade
[2007-11-27 21:12] upgraded firefox (2.0.0.9-1 -> 2.0.0.10-1)    <------ Successful upgrade to 2.0.0.10-1
[2007-11-28 04:14] synchronizing package lists
[2007-11-28 04:14] starting full system upgrade
[2007-11-28 04:14] upgraded firefox (2.0.0.10-1 -> 2.0.0.10-1)   <------ 'Phantom' upgrade to 2.0.0.10-2
[2007-11-28 04:15] synchronizing package lists
[2007-11-28 04:15] starting full system upgrade
[2007-11-28 04:16] upgraded firefox (2.0.0.10-1 -> 2.0.0.10-1)   <------ 'Phantom' upgrade to 2.0.0.10-2

shining · 2007-11-28 09:54:03

Well, nothing new here. As it has already been said, it already happened recently with rxvt-unicode.
It's exactly the same issue that happened again with firefox.
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-d … 10255.html

It'll probably be fixed by the next release bump of firefox package. Just wait.
In the meantime, you could add firefox to IgnorePkg.

MrWeatherbee · 2007-11-28 10:16:31

shining wrote:

Well, nothing new here. As it has already been said, it already happened recently with rxvt-unicode.

Just trying to clarify that nothing was upgraded because nothing was downloaded. I wasn't sure if the OP understood that.

mucknert · 2007-11-28 10:18:24

Did anyone actually care to file a bugreport? That would be a lot more helpfull than a thread here because most Devs don't read the BBS but do care for bugreports.

Last edited by mucknert (2007-11-28 10:18:46)

MrWeatherbee · 2007-11-28 10:32:00

mucknert wrote:

Did anyone actually care to file a bugreport? That would be a lot more helpfull than a thread here because most Devs don't read the BBS but do care for bugreports.

You know what would be even more helpful ... less people telling other people to file bug reports instead of posting here. Maybe some people like to confirm with other users before officially filing a bug report. That seems reasonable to me.

What doesn't seem reasonable is people reading through the forums waiting to find an excuse to tell other people how to behave.

dhave · 2007-11-28 10:47:37

MrWeatherbee wrote:

mucknert wrote:
Did anyone actually care to file a bugreport? That would be a lot more helpfull than a thread here because most Devs don't read the BBS but do care for bugreports.
You know what would be even more helpful ... less people telling other people to file bug reports instead of posting here. Maybe some people like to confirm with other users before officially filing a bug report. That seems reasonable to me.
What doesn't seem reasonable is people reading through the forums waiting to find an excuse to tell other people how to behave.

I generally post an apparent error here first, since I usually assume the problem is local (i.e., with my system or with my usage) before jumping to conclusions. But it does seem there's sufficent evidence for a bug report.

I'm not clear, though, as to whether this is a problem with pacman or with the two suspect packages, firefox and rxvt-unicode. So what do I report?

Thanks.

dhave · 2007-11-28 10:48:28

MrWeatherbee wrote:

shining wrote:
Well, nothing new here. As it has already been said, it already happened recently with rxvt-unicode.
Just trying to clarify that nothing was upgraded because nothing was downloaded. I wasn't sure if the OP understood that.

No, I hadn't realized that. Thanks for the clarification.

LinuxPatsku · 2007-11-28 10:52:23

First I got this:

:: Starting full system upgrade...
resolving dependencies... done.
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: firefox-i18n requires firefox=2.0.0.9

Then I removed Firefox and Firefox-i18n.

sudo pacman -R firefox-i18n firefox

and install again:

$ sudo pacman -S firefox-i18n firefox
resolving dependencies... done.
looking for inter-conflicts... done.

Targets: firefox-2.0.0.10-2  firefox-i18n-2.0.0.9-1  

Total Package Size:   15,62 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
checking package integrity... done.
cleaning up... done.
(2/2) checking for file conflicts                   [####################] 100%
*downloading this time, I messed around and right package found in pacman cache.*
(1/2) upgrading firefox                             [####################] 100%
(2/2) installing firefox-i18n

Now it works! Brilliant!

Last edited by LinuxPatsku (2007-11-28 10:58:49)

dhave · 2007-11-28 10:57:57

LinuxPatsku wrote:

Now it works! Brilliant!
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3273 … fw9.th.jpg

But are you certain that it's firefox-2.0.0.10-2 that you've got installed? My copy of firefox-2.0.0.10-1 has the same build info as your image file.

I suspect that if you do pacman -Syu again, you'll see that pacman want to update firefox *again*. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Last edited by dhave (2007-11-28 10:58:17)

LinuxPatsku · 2007-11-28 11:01:50

dhave wrote:

LinuxPatsku wrote:
Now it works! Brilliant!
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3273 … fw9.th.jpg
But are you certain that it's firefox-2.0.0.10-2 that you've got installed? My copy of firefox-2.0.0.10-1 has the same build info as your image file.
I suspect that if you do pacman -Syu again, you'll see that pacman want to update firefox *again*. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Hmmm, I inspired too much. Also my copy is firefox-2.0.0.10-1...
I hope someone solved this.

Last edited by LinuxPatsku (2007-11-28 11:02:58)

dhave · 2007-11-28 11:03:42

LinuxPatsku wrote:

dhave wrote:
LinuxPatsku wrote:
Now it works! Brilliant!
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3273 … fw9.th.jpg
But are you certain that it's firefox-2.0.0.10-2 that you've got installed? My copy of firefox-2.0.0.10-1 has the same build info as your image file.
I suspect that if you do pacman -Syu again, you'll see that pacman want to update firefox *again*. I hope I'm wrong, though.
Hmmm, I inspired too much. Also my copy is firefox-2.0.0.10-1...
I hope someone solved this.

Of course, if this is our biggest problem in life, then I guess we're doing all right ...

mucknert · 2007-11-28 11:13:17

dhave wrote:

I generally post an apparent error here first, since I usually assume the problem is local (i.e., with my system or with my usage) before jumping to conclusions. But it does seem there's sufficent evidence for a bug report.
I'm not clear, though, as to whether this is a problem with pacman or with the two suspect packages, firefox and rxvt-unicode. So what do I report?
Thanks.

That seems fair enough for me. But after some people were able to confirm your problem, a bug-report would have been in order, don't you think? That's why I posted that reply after some people confirmed your observation and not before.

MrWeatherbee wrote:

You know what would be even more helpful ... less people telling other people to file bug reports instead of posting here. Maybe some people like to confirm with other users before officially filing a bug report. That seems reasonable to me.
What doesn't seem reasonable is people reading through the forums waiting to find an excuse to tell other people how to behave.

No need for an assault, you know. A totally uncalled-for reaction. See what I wrote in return to dhave. Maybe you shouldn't take such things so personal. If you read carefully you might see that my first post did not involve any hostilities at all but just a factual analysis and a question. Just because it wasn't overloaded with emoticons doesn't mean that I was rude or intended to be rude. You, on the other hand, just made a very different impression. Perhaps you should also read http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Forum_Etiquette someday.

Last edited by mucknert (2007-11-28 11:16:14)

dhave · 2007-11-28 11:28:17

mucknert wrote:

dhave wrote:
I generally post an apparent error here first, since I usually assume the problem is local (i.e., with my system or with my usage) before jumping to conclusions. But it does seem there's sufficent evidence for a bug report.
I'm not clear, though, as to whether this is a problem with pacman or with the two suspect packages, firefox and rxvt-unicode. So what do I report?
Thanks.
That seems fair enough for me. But after some people were able to confirm your problem, a bug-report would have been in order, don't you think? That's why I posted that reply after some people confirmed your observation and not before.

Help me out here. Should I report the bug as a pacman problem? I'm not quite sure how to proceed (I don't have much bug-reporting experience.) Thanks.

mucknert · 2007-11-28 11:36:55

As it happened before with a different package I would file a new bug-report for pacman OR look if you can find a different one that has been filed before when the same thing happened with rxvt-unicode. If you can find one, comment there. We also had a thread about that, if I am not mistaken. Look there, maybe another helpful soul already put something up.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-11-28 12:18:02

Bug filed.

Last edited by Ramses de Norre (2007-11-28 12:18:21)

MrWeatherbee · 2007-11-28 12:29:09

mucknert wrote:

No need for an assault, you know. A totally uncalled-for reaction. See what I wrote in return to dhave. Maybe you shouldn't take such things so personal. If you read carefully you might see that my first post did not involve any hostilities at all but just a factual analysis and a question. Just because it wasn't overloaded with emoticons doesn't mean that I was rude or intended to be rude. You, on the other hand, just made a very different impression. Perhaps you should also read http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Forum_Etiquette someday.

mucknert (in another thread) wrote:

Alright, guess I understood that wrong. But guess what: we have a place to discuss problems with the Arch-System, to ask if someone can verify what seems as a bug or problem with a package. We call it the bugtracker and you can find it under http://bugs.archlinux.org/. Threads like this give me the impression that the OP just wants to generate noise, "make him/herself heard", but isn't interested in providing solutions.
To put it in a way that fits the KISS-philosophy: shut up and code! No offense.
Charming as usual,
mucknert

I believe your posting history (not just based on the posts presented here) has given me an impression that lead to my response. It was not arbitrary.

mucknert · 2007-11-28 12:34:36

You could also just leave out the pseudo-morality, get back on topic and provide solution instead of trying to be the Robin Hood of the BBS-Folks. Clearly you are getting way to personal which is a violation to the rules. Either take it out in personal with me via private messages or don't take it out at all. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute? If not I would very much like you to not hijack the thread for your personal crusade.

Why do we get into such an argument anyway? Everyone just tried to provide some help in one or the other way. So we should probably just relax and grab a coffee or two.

Last edited by mucknert (2007-11-28 13:26:59)

shining · 2007-11-28 13:13:20

To dhave:
I gave a link to the pacman-dev ML where I said it wasn't a pacman bug.
pacman only extracts/reads the sync databases, it doesn't generate them.

Aaron seems to have a better idea of the problem :
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-d … 10335.html
He also already informed the other dev of the firefox problem :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 03398.html

So as I already said, just wait. At least the firefox issue will be taken care of.
If you still want to update the other packages, just ignore firefox.

And then hopefully a dev will find a way to make the db scripts more bullet proof.

dhave · 2007-11-28 13:56:45

shining wrote:

To dhave:
I gave a link to the pacman-dev ML where I said it wasn't a pacman bug.
pacman only extracts/reads the sync databases, it doesn't generate them.
Aaron seems to have a better idea of the problem :
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-d … 10335.html
He also already informed the other dev of the firefox problem :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 03398.html
So as I already said, just wait. At least the firefox issue will be taken care of.
If you still want to update the other packages, just ignore firefox.
And then hopefully a dev will find a way to make the db scripts more bullet proof.

@shining: I didn't see the link in your post. (I was distracted by the drama that ensued!)

It sounds like the right people are on the case. Thanks.

dhave · 2007-11-28 14:00:40

mucknert wrote:

Why do we get into such an argument anyway? Everyone just tried to provide some help in one or the other way. So we should probably just relax and grab a coffee or two.

Not coffee, and certainly not two. Better try something calmative.

Dusty · 2007-11-28 14:14:20

weatherbee: suggesting people file bug reports is good etiquette, otherwise people's problems are lost. In this specific case, it would have been most helpful if you'd filed one or suggested filing one once you had confirmed the issue.

mucknert: It would help to take a course in diplomacy, especially when using the English language. I'm aware that speaking German allows one to be quite a bit more blunt without it being considered impolite than in English. :-)

Both of you equally and everyone in general: Its not good form to tell others how to behave. We have forum guidelines for this and forum advisers who have the authority (and *hopefully* the tact) to do this task. Remember that no matter how right you may be, other forum users may not agree and they have that right. The correct action when confronted with something you find abusive or offensive is to report the thread (thanks mucknert)

As a bug has been reported and as shining has clearly stated, the developers are aware of the problem, I consider the original topic closed and am locking this as a personal dispute.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-11-28 06:51:50

Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#2 2007-11-28 07:08:55

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#3 2007-11-28 07:10:13

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#4 2007-11-28 07:13:14

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#5 2007-11-28 09:43:06

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#6 2007-11-28 09:54:03

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#7 2007-11-28 10:16:31

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#8 2007-11-28 10:18:24

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#9 2007-11-28 10:32:00

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#10 2007-11-28 10:47:37

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#11 2007-11-28 10:48:28

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#12 2007-11-28 10:52:23

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#13 2007-11-28 10:57:57

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#14 2007-11-28 11:01:50

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#15 2007-11-28 11:03:42

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#16 2007-11-28 11:13:17

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#17 2007-11-28 11:28:17

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#18 2007-11-28 11:36:55

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#19 2007-11-28 12:18:02

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#20 2007-11-28 12:29:09

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#21 2007-11-28 12:34:36

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#22 2007-11-28 13:13:20

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#23 2007-11-28 13:56:45

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#24 2007-11-28 14:00:40

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

#25 2007-11-28 14:14:20

Re: Pacman keeps trying to upgrade firefox

Board footer