64bit flashplugin upgrade

tesjo · 2011-10-04 22:36:11

I just updated to flashplugin-11.0.1.152-1 pacman however did not remove all of the multilib libraries when going from 32bit to 64bit. I found it easiest to remove flashplugin 11, reinstall flashplugin-10.3.183.10-1 from cache, and then remove with pacman -Rs to remove all my uneeded 32 bit libraries. Then of course install flashplugin 11.

Now I hope this 64 bit version works well.

karol · 2011-10-04 22:44:07

I think it's a variant of https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24005

tesjo · 2011-10-05 01:44:43

Nice. That links back to FS#5974 dated right about the time I first installed Arch when I saw voodoo released on Distrowatch. And since it's a request assigned to Phrakture I'll consider it virtually taken care of.

the sad clown · 2011-10-05 02:22:24

Have to say, I'm just glad to finally see Adobe putting out a stable native 64 bit product.

karol · 2011-10-05 02:35:57

FS#5974 hasn't seen much activity in the last 4 years but one can always hope :-)

wonder · 2011-10-05 03:39:31

i don't understand your issue. basically you are saying that you failed to use pacman.

pacman -Syu

upgrade to flashplugin 11

then remove unused dependencies

pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qdtq)

is not pacman's job to remove unused dependencieis automatically at pacman -Syu

!next

karol · 2011-10-05 03:42:21

wonder wrote:

is not pacman's job to remove unused dependencieis automatically at pacman -Syu

Why not? I believe it to be part of package management.
Whether it's doable and whether 'pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qdtq)' is good enough is another thing :-)

wonder · 2011-10-05 04:12:04

pacman doesn't hold hands

the sad clown · 2011-10-05 12:18:34

wonder wrote:

pacman doesn't hold hands

Not even during a stroll on clear winter night through a snow covered park, glistening under the light of a thousand stars?

stqn · 2011-10-05 12:33:08

According to my experience, removing everything listed by pacman -Qdtq wouldn't work (would remove useful stuff) because pacman doesn't handle optional dependencies. But maybe there's something I don't know...

Edit: I've been installing optional dependencies with the --asdeps flag. Probably a bad idea... But installing without the flag isn't much better in my view: either way there's manual management to be done when packages are removed.

Last edited by stqn (2011-10-05 12:38:45)

Ramses de Norre · 2011-10-05 12:39:30

stqn wrote:

According to my experience, removing everything listed by pacman -Qdtq wouldn't work (would remove useful stuff) because pacman doesn't handle optional dependencies. But maybe there's something I don't know...

Depends on your take on the inevitable dillema, do you install optdeps with or without --asdeps ...

tesjo · 2011-10-05 16:16:07

karol wrote:

wonder wrote:
is not pacman's job to remove unused dependencieis automatically at pacman -Syu
Why not? I believe it to be part of package management.

One reason, and not the only one and not the most important one, why I came to arch from slackware was a package manager with dependency support. Pacman does support dependencies. I don't understand why dependencies are supported for install and removal, but not for upgrades. If it is a technical issue waiting for someone inclined to code a solution I understand, but a philosophical one I don't.

Last edited by tesjo (2011-10-05 16:19:32)

karol · 2011-10-05 17:11:33

tesjo wrote:

karol wrote:
wonder wrote:
is not pacman's job to remove unused dependencieis automatically at pacman -Syu
Why not? I believe it to be part of package management.
One reason, and not the only one and not the most important one, why I came to arch from slackware was a package manager with dependency support. Pacman does support dependencies. I don't understand why dependencies are supported for install and removal, but not for upgrades. If it is a technical issue waiting for someone inclined to code a solution I understand, but a philosophical one I don't.

You many want to read the topic that lead to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24005 - https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=116423

BasT · 2011-10-05 18:44:28

wonder wrote:

then remove unused dependencies
pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qdtq)

When I try this it wants to remove 3GBs worth of packages, including all of xorg and kde.

ethail · 2011-10-05 19:11:32

BasT:

Seems that you did something wrong, because here it doesn't happen

Are you sure that's whay you did input?

Last edited by ethail (2011-10-05 19:12:03)

BasT · 2011-10-05 19:15:00

ethail wrote:

BasT:
Seems that you did something wrong, because here it doesn't happen
Are you sure that's whay you did input?

Absolutely. I copy&pasted it directly from wonder's post.

karol · 2011-10-05 19:48:39

BasT wrote:

ethail wrote:
BasT:
Seems that you did something wrong, because here it doesn't happen
Are you sure that's whay you did input?
Absolutely. I copy&pasted it directly from wonder's post.

If you need help, please open another thread with the output of 'pacman -Qdtq'.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-10-04 22:36:11

64bit flashplugin upgrade

#2 2011-10-04 22:44:07

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#3 2011-10-05 01:44:43

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#4 2011-10-05 02:22:24

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#5 2011-10-05 02:35:57

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#6 2011-10-05 03:39:31

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#7 2011-10-05 03:42:21

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#8 2011-10-05 04:12:04

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#9 2011-10-05 12:18:34

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#10 2011-10-05 12:33:08

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#11 2011-10-05 12:39:30

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#12 2011-10-05 16:16:07

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#13 2011-10-05 17:11:33

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#14 2011-10-05 18:44:28

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#15 2011-10-05 19:11:32

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#16 2011-10-05 19:15:00

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

#17 2011-10-05 19:48:39

Re: 64bit flashplugin upgrade

Board footer