FS#8780 - Firefox-2.0.0.10-2 doesn't get installed (cf. urxvt bug)

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Ramses de Norre (Ramses_de_Norre) - Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 12:17 GMT
Last edited by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Monday, 03 December 2007, 04:08 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Alexander Baldeck (kth5)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority High
Reported Version 2007.08-2
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 13
Private No

Details

Description:

The same problem as with the urxvt package from a couple of days ago, is happening with the new firefox package. Pacman doesn't actually install the new package and keeps asking to upgrade firefox when running -Suy.

Pacman.log content:

[2007-11-28 13:02] upgraded firefox (2.0.0.10-1 -> 2.0.0.10-1)


Additional info:
* firefox-2.0.0.10-2


Steps to reproduce:
Run pacman -Suy on a system with firefox 2.0.0.10-1 installed, pacman will propose to install the new version and tells you it succeeded. If you run pacman -Suy again, however, pacman tells you you've got the -1 package installed and wants to upgrade again.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Monday, 03 December 2007, 04:08 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  Fixed with firefox-2.0.0.10-3
Comment by Baeyens (berbae) - Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 13:14 GMT
In the extra repo it is the firefox-2.0.0.10-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz which is present.
But pacman -Syu tells that firefox-2.0.0.10-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz is available.
So pacman try to re-install firefox-2.0.0.10-1 again and again.
It seems that the firefox-2.0.0.10-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz package has not really been transfered to the mirrors sites.
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 14:43 GMT
It gets installed, if you go to Help > About, you can check the version... The problem is actually with the pacman database... It's getting quite annoying...
Comment by Martin Schmidt (Blind) - Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 16:17 GMT
Yup, I am *not* using urxvt. This is a problem of the package. Something went wrong with the firefox-2.0.0.10-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz package. And now it wants to install firefox-2.0.0.10-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz over and over with each pacman -Syu.
And the reason is:

http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/network/firefox/PKGBUILD?rev=1.23&cvsroot=Extra&only_with_tag=CURRENT&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

The variable for

pkgrel=1

wasn't updated (hehe, even though it says it was 'fixed' in the CVS note)...

Cheers
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Thursday, 29 November 2007, 13:16 GMT
appears to be fixed now, please confirm
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Thursday, 29 November 2007, 14:07 GMT
doesn't check (not yet), at least for my repo.... (http://cesium.di.uminho.pt/)
Comment by Martin Schmidt (Blind) - Thursday, 29 November 2007, 15:54 GMT
Not fixed for me.
The PKGBUILD still says pkgrel=1, while -2 is out.
Comment by Carlos Eduardo (cems) - Thursday, 29 November 2007, 18:16 GMT
Not fixed for me. My mirror is ftp://ftp.archlinux.org
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 06:29 GMT
  • Field changed: Severity (Low → Medium)
  • Field changed: Priority (Normal → High)
Upping the priority here - we should address this issue by releasing a -3 package if at all possible
Comment by Börje Holmberg (linfan) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 09:22 GMT
Is it so difficult to change pkgrel = 1 to pkgrel =2? I did it manually in the PKGBUILD and built the pkg myself with makepkg. That solved it. But it is a mighty big package to build, and it can take up to 2 hours and longer on a slow computer. So I understand the need to get it fixed. Good luck!
Comment by Baeyens (berbae) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 10:21 GMT
I've looked in two french extra repos and here is what I found.
the extra.db.tar.gz file contains and installs locally by 'pacman -Sy' :
/var/lib/pacman/extra/firefox-2.0.0.10-2
/var/lib/pacman/extra/firefox-2.0.0.10-2/depends
/var/lib/pacman/extra/firefox-2.0.0.10-2/desc

but in the extra repo the package file is firefox-2.0.0.10-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz which pacman downloads/installs with 'pacman -Su'.

So the problem is in the extra.db.tar.gz file which should contains firefox-2.0.0.10-1
Comment by Vasco Costa (anakin) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 11:15 GMT
Also not fixed for me at http://cesium.di.uminho.pt/ and several other mirrors I've tried.
%FILENAME% and %VERSION% in extra.db.tar.gz don't match:

%FILENAME%
firefox-2.0.0.10-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz

%VERSION%
2.0.0.10-2
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 11:38 GMT
this is getting dumb... someone is sleeping... regular users would be able to fix this, and there's no point to just let it as is.....
Comment by Vasco Costa (anakin) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 12:54 GMT
Also not fixed for me at http://cesium.di.uminho.pt/ and several other mirrors I've tried.
%FILENAME% and %VERSION% in extra.db.tar.gz don't match:

%FILENAME%
firefox-2.0.0.10-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz

%VERSION%
2.0.0.10-2
Comment by Baeyens (berbae) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 13:17 GMT
There is another problem with the upgrade of Firefox :

ldd /opt/mozilla/lib/firefox-2.0.0.10/firefox-bin|grep "not found"
libmozjs.so => not found
libxpcom.so => not found
libxpcom_core.so => not found

locate libmozjs.so libxpcom.so libxpcom_core.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/firefox-2.0.0.10/libmozjs.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/firefox-2.0.0.10/libxpcom.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/firefox-2.0.0.10/libxpcom_core.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/thunderbird-2.0.0.9/libmozjs.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/thunderbird-2.0.0.9/libxpcom.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/thunderbird-2.0.0.9/libxpcom_core.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/xulrunner-1.8.1.9/libmozjs.so
/opt/mozilla/lib/xulrunner-1.8.1.9/libxpcom.so
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 16:50 GMT
I'm confused, it looks like Alexander reverted the pkgrel to 1 instead of bumping it to 3 :
http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/network/firefox/PKGBUILD.diff?r1=1.22&r2=1.23&cvsroot=Extra

Baeyens : I'm not sure what that is (whether it's something to worry about or not), but you should probably file another bug report for it.
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 18:06 GMT
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003501.html
Full explaination
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Saturday, 01 December 2007, 00:55 GMT
never mind. 2.0.0.11 is out
Comment by Carlos Eduardo (cems) - Saturday, 01 December 2007, 01:06 GMT
Which mirror has 2.0.0.11?
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Saturday, 01 December 2007, 01:16 GMT
none, i guess, but shouldn't take long, given the philosophy.....
Comment by Carlos Eduardo (cems) - Sunday, 02 December 2007, 19:08 GMT
2.0.0.10-3 is ok! Thank you.

Loading...