Prev: hard links to files on other filesystems disallowed: why?
Next: Self hosting console mode issue tracking software for Linux
From: faeychild on 22 Feb 2010 22:47
Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:hlte30$ar4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org,
> faeychild <faeychild(a)noname.afraid.org> typed:
>
>>> Running firefox 3.6 myself.
>>
>> I am not going to cause potential career changes by installing out of
>> sequence browsers. I could precipitate an upgrade nightmare. :)
>
> The FF browsers were *never* "out of sequence" ...

They might be if I pre-empt current automatic upgrade (currently 3.0.18) by
installing 3.6

> it was your
> installation policies that failed to maintain the upgrade sequence when
> each became available.
I don't have any installation policies, I accept the upgrades as they come.

>
> You'll not find any such imaginary upgrade nightmares with FF. Installing
> the current version has no dependence on what previous version you are
> using, as it will maintain your bookmarks etc.

So if I were to install the current 3.6 version what would happen when the
regular upgrade sequence expected to see 3.0.18. Would it back out
gracefully or would it overwrite.
To get around this I would have to edit URPMI installed packages log.

Even then as the Mandriva upgrade is nowhere near 3.6 how would it handle
the conflicting log entry.


--
faeychild
Running kde on 2.6.29.6-desktop-3mnb kernel.
Mandriva Linux release 2009.1 (Official) for i586

From: Bit Twister on 23 Feb 2010 00:17
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:47:32 +1100, faeychild wrote:
>
> So if I were to install the current 3.6 version what would happen when the
> regular upgrade sequence expected to see 3.0.18. Would it back out
> gracefully or would it overwrite.
> To get around this I would have to edit URPMI installed packages log.
>
> Even then as the Mandriva upgrade is nowhere near 3.6 how would it handle
> the conflicting log entry.

Only other solution would be to install firefox somewhere else like /opt.

Then either change current link to point into /opt or put a link in
/usr/local/bin then modify PATH to have /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin.

The last is what I do.
$ type -a firefox
firefox is /usr/local/bin/firefox <==== link to my install
firefox is /usr/bin/firefox <==== mandriva's install
From: Robert Riches on 23 Feb 2010 00:26
On 2010-02-23, Bit Twister <BitTwister(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:47:32 +1100, faeychild wrote:
>>
>> So if I were to install the current 3.6 version what would happen when the
>> regular upgrade sequence expected to see 3.0.18. Would it back out
>> gracefully or would it overwrite.
>> To get around this I would have to edit URPMI installed packages log.
>>
>> Even then as the Mandriva upgrade is nowhere near 3.6 how would it handle
>> the conflicting log entry.
>
> Only other solution would be to install firefox somewhere else like /opt.
>
> Then either change current link to point into /opt or put a link in
> /usr/local/bin then modify PATH to have /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin.
>
> The last is what I do.
> $ type -a firefox
> firefox is /usr/local/bin/firefox <==== link to my install
> firefox is /usr/bin/firefox <==== mandriva's install

If you install Firefox from a tarball, you can unpack that
tarball where you would like, and Firefox will run from there
just fine. Until I started using devilspie to work around a
Firefox bug, I patched the source with a workaround and compiled
each version. I had three or four different versions sitting
around just in case a newer one caused a problem.

--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42(a)verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
From: David W. Hodgins on 23 Feb 2010 02:10
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:47:32 -0500, faeychild <faeychild(a)noname.afraid.org> wrote:

> Even then as the Mandriva upgrade is nowhere near 3.6 how would it handle
> the conflicting log entry.

The current (2010.0) version of firefox on the Mandriva repositories
is 3.5.8. If you choose to install firefox from a tar ball, you
should uninstall the Mandriva version, so updates from Mandriva will
not possibly cause any conflicts with the version you've installed.

With firefox, as /usr/local/bin normally is in the $PATH prior to
/usr/bin, it would be ok, without removing the firefox rpm package,
but in general, if you are installing a package from a source other
then the Mandriva repositories, you should take steps to ensure they
will not be overwritten.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: faeychild on 24 Feb 2010 00:29
Bit Twister wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:47:32 +1100, faeychild wrote:
>>
>> So if I were to install the current 3.6 version what would happen when
>> the regular upgrade sequence expected to see 3.0.18. Would it back out
>> gracefully or would it overwrite.
>> To get around this I would have to edit URPMI installed packages log.
>>
>> Even then as the Mandriva upgrade is nowhere near 3.6 how would it handle
>> the conflicting log entry.
>
> Only other solution would be to install firefox somewhere else like /opt.
>
> Then either change current link to point into /opt or put a link in
> /usr/local/bin then modify PATH to have /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin.
>
> The last is what I do.
> $ type -a firefox
> firefox is /usr/local/bin/firefox <==== link to my install
> firefox is /usr/bin/firefox <==== mandriva's install



Hi Bits

This has all side tracked rather well.
I have no intention of installing a tarball, I am content with the normal
upgrade procedures.
It's interesting that David says the repositories are up to 3.5.8. The last
upgrade is well behind this.

Although I am running 2009 um .1 :-)

I agree. I would put it /opt if I was installing.


--
faeychild
Running kde on 2.6.29.6-desktop-3mnb kernel.
Mandriva Linux release 2009.1 (Official) for i586

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: hard links to files on other filesystems disallowed: why?
Next: Self hosting console mode issue tracking software for Linux