Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

5x5 · 2007-12-19 16:24:10

Well, this is probably a typical newbie screw-up here. When I first installed Arch, I decided to try kdemod. Even though it's way cooler than standard kde, I'm kind of getting tired of that look. So...I followed the guidelines for uninstall from the kdemod faq that basically calls for grepping 'kdemod' and uninstalling everything individually via -Rd in pacman including qt-enhanced.
Ok, I didn't think this through very well at the time. I really LOVE akregator and amarok...so I neglected to uninstall those pkgs with everything else. Dumb. Really dumb. Now, I have the icons in my menu but OF COURSE they're broken. Now the problem is that I can't 'pacman -Rd akregator' because I get:
error: failed to add target 'akregator' (could not find or read package)
I also cannot 'pacman -Sy akregator' because I get:
error: 'akregator': not found in sync db

I don't know what to do now. I would like to go ahead and install those things again and use them b/c I don't care for rhythmbox or exaile (I can live with exaile tho) and I don't know of a good alternative to akregator yet.

Can anyone suggest anything? I'm in a pickle. :-(

Many tks,
Carrie
(5x5)

Cerebral · 2007-12-19 16:33:04

Try searching your db with pacman -Qs akregator and pacman -Qs amarok

5x5 · 2007-12-19 16:59:30

Ok, that did the trick for uninstalling! Yipee!
Now, to reinstall, do I need to activate the kdemod repo again or.......
Also, do you know anything about Bon Echo, Cerebral? Apparently, gnome installed that along with epiphany. I kinda like it and have been using it but I can't find where it's installed to. Would it be under another name, do ya think?

Thx for your help,
Carrie
(5x5)

5x5 · 2007-12-19 17:00:58

Never mind on the repo. Got it!!
;-)

ebirtaid · 2007-12-19 18:03:34

bon echo is firefox

Cerebral · 2007-12-19 18:44:20

Yeah, due to trademarking issues or something of that sort, since we apply some patches to firefox (I think?) we aren't allowed to brand it as "Firefox" anymore, so we enable options at compile-time that call it "Bon Echo". It _is_ firefox under the hood tho.

It's installed to, at current, /opt/mozilla/firefox I think, though we're working on getting that stuff moved out of /opt

5x5 · 2007-12-19 19:23:29

Yeah, I looked it up on mozilla. Alpha release of 'next generation' browser? Hmm. Anywho...I like it ok.
I am in the process of re-installing right now anyway. I was using x86_64 but b/c of problems with flash and continued problems with kde stuff (there was kde crap all over my system even after uninstalling as the kdemod page suggested), I'm doing a clean install with i686. I'm going to go with gnome and xfce4 this time. No more kde. What a pain!

Cerebral · 2007-12-19 19:34:01

5x5 wrote:

Yeah, I looked it up on mozilla. Alpha release of 'next generation' browser? Hmm. Anywho...I like it ok.

Nono, it's not an alpha of anything. It's firefox, the full, normal, 2.x release. It's just named differently.

5x5 · 2007-12-20 00:11:56

Well, how weird. Check this out.....

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho … 2.0a1.html

I'm confussled.

Cerebral · 2007-12-20 00:43:46

Very well, I'll go into excruciating detail.

"Bon Echo" was (is?) the codename for firefox 2.0 when it was in alpha form. That's why you see that name associated with Firefox on those pages you've found. We're aware of this.

Mozilla has very strict rules regarding their trademark of the "Firefox" name - any modifications to the code they provide may (afaik) no longer be called "Firefox" as they are no longer strictly the product called "Firefox". We had a lengthy discussion about this issue as developers and decided that, since we apply a few patches to get our firefox package in proper working order, that we wouldn't go through the hassle we might get if we continue to brand the application firefox.

So, in our build scripts, we disabled branding, which is something that (again afaik) mozilla added to the build process to make it easier for distros like ours to remove their trademarked "Firefox" name from the application. By default, this removes "Firefox" and the well-known firefox logo from the application in all places, and replaces "Firefox" with "Bon Echo" - the codename they used through the alpha process - and the firefox logo with a generic globe-like icon.

We currently package firefox version 2.0.0.11:

$ pacman -Qi firefox
Name           : firefox
Version        : 2.0.0.11-1

which is distinctly NOT the alpha versions. The name remains 'firefox' simply because we don't want to over-confuse users - we try to keep things as simple as possible, and telling people to install the "bonecho" package when they're looking for firefox isn't exactly simple.

To my knowledge, this is something that other distros do as well, and something that has been discussed in this forum when we first made the switch from "Firefox" to "Bon Echo" as other users were curious. We often recommend people search the forums before asking questions - a search for "Bon Echo" in the forum's search engine would have turned up at least a couple helpful results, in particular:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38629
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=34136
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=33622

Hopefully that clears up any confusion you may have.

You can trust me. I try not to talk about things I don't know.

5x5 · 2007-12-20 01:06:00

Yikes. I sure hope you didn't think I was implying you didn't know what you were talking about. That's not at all what I was about. I just thought it was a weird co-inky-dink and thought I might've misread that webpage or something...OR, stranger still....mozilla, unbeknownst to you guys, named one of their super secret projects the same obscure name that you chose for your version of firefox! Lil' jokey wokey there...but....
I didn't even really mean to generate a discussion like this about it and I WOULD have searched the forums had it been keeping me up at night. I feel bad that you went into 'excruciating detail' b/c I know you're busy here. :-(
Sorry bout that.

Carrie
(5x5)

Last edited by 5x5 (2007-12-20 01:07:05)

Cerebral · 2007-12-20 14:14:27

lol - no worries. Now there's a single thread (this one) where everything is laid out in great detail. If I didn't have the time to write up that post, I wouldn't have bothered, but it seemed that I had to start from the start to clear up the confusion, hence 'excruciating detail.'

5x5 · 2007-12-20 15:26:29

Well, I appreciate the clarification. :-)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-19 16:24:10

Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#2 2007-12-19 16:33:04

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#3 2007-12-19 16:59:30

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#4 2007-12-19 17:00:58

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#5 2007-12-19 18:03:34

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#6 2007-12-19 18:44:20

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#7 2007-12-19 19:23:29

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#8 2007-12-19 19:34:01

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#9 2007-12-20 00:11:56

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#10 2007-12-20 00:43:46

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#11 2007-12-20 01:06:00

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#12 2007-12-20 14:14:27

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

#13 2007-12-20 15:26:29

Re: Oh no. Can't uninstall or reinstall Akregator or Amarok. Not in DB.

Board footer