FS#12216 - xulrunner 1.9.0.4 not in repository but required by firefox
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Nicolas Doualot (slubman) - Sunday, 23 November 2008, 11:59 GMT
Last edited by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Sunday, 23 November 2008, 19:33 GMT
Opened by Nicolas Doualot (slubman) - Sunday, 23 November 2008, 11:59 GMT
Last edited by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Sunday, 23 November 2008, 19:33 GMT
|
Details
Description:
Wrong dependency for firefox (requires xulrunner 1.9.0.4 but repos only have 1.9.0.3) Additional info: * package version(s) : firefox 3.0.4-1, xulrunner 1.9.0.3-1 Steps to reproduce: just pacman -Syu You can also see the problem with this command: $ pacman -Si firefox xulrunner | grep -E 'Name|Depends' Name : firefox Depends On : xulrunner=1.9.0.4 desktop-file-utils shared-mime-info Name : xulrunner Depends On : gtk2>=2.12.11 gcc-libs>=4.3.1 libidl2>=0.8.10 |
This task depends upon
Closed by Eric Belanger (Snowman)
Sunday, 23 November 2008, 19:33 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: wait for your mirror to sync.
Sunday, 23 November 2008, 19:33 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: wait for your mirror to sync.
This breaks the system upgrade (pacman -Syu), so it should be marked as critical.
Just a workaround for the moment, but I think it will get fixed soon.
I know that if I remove firefox, or upgrade xulrunner via the PKGBUILD, I can avoid the problem... but thats just a work around and the thing is the upgrade process is broken until this package gets fixed.
ps. I dont mind that much. I was simply reporting that due to this package, pacman cant get to upgrade the system.
and: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/firefox/
As you can see, the i686 xulrunner package (in extra repository, obviously) was upgraded to 1.9.0.4 the same day Firefox for i686 was upgraded. Similar to the i686 packages, the x86_64 xulrunner and Firefox package have always been released together. So the fact that only Firefox package get upgraded this time is definitely a valid bug.