Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #237553 > unrolled thread

Uninstalling Chromium

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Uninstalling Chromium andrehpb@gmail.com - 2021-07-20 20:00 +0200
    Re: Uninstalling Chromium Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-07-20 20:00 +0200
      Re: Uninstalling Chromium Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2021-07-20 22:20 +0200
        Re: Uninstalling Chromium Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-07-20 22:40 +0200
          Re: Uninstalling Chromium Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-07-20 23:10 +0200
            Re: Uninstalling Chromium Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2021-07-20 23:30 +0200
        Re: Uninstalling Chromium Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2021-07-21 11:40 +0200
          Re: Uninstalling Chromium Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2021-07-21 12:40 +0200
            virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling  Chromium) Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2021-07-21 12:50 +0200
              Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling  Chromium) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2021-07-21 13:10 +0200
                Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling  Chromium) Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-07-21 13:40 +0200
                  Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling  Chromium) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2021-07-21 13:50 +0200
                  Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling  Chromium) Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2021-07-21 18:10 +0200

#237553 — Uninstalling Chromium

Good afternoon, I am uninstalling chromium from Debian 10 and the
procedure automatically installs firefox and the same happens when
uninstalling firefox. How to solve this? Thanks.


Boa tarde, estou desinstalado crhomium do Debian 10 e o procedimento
instala automaticamente o firefox e o mesmo acontede ao desistalar o
firefox. Como resolver isso? Obrigado.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#237555

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:15:32PM -0400, andrehpb@gmail.com wrote:
> Good afternoon, I am uninstalling chromium from Debian 10 and the
> procedure automatically installs firefox and the same happens when
> uninstalling firefox. How to solve this? Thanks.

You probably have a desktop environment installed which Depends: on
a web browser.  So, when you uninstall one, it falls back to a different
one, in order to satisfy this dependency.

If firefox-esr is currently installed, then you can ask aptitude what's
keeping it here:

aptitude why firefox-esr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237558

On 20.07.21 19:58 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:15:32PM -0400, andrehpb@gmail.com wrote:
>> Good afternoon, I am uninstalling chromium from Debian 10 and the
>> procedure automatically installs firefox and the same happens when
>> uninstalling firefox. How to solve this? Thanks.
> You probably have a desktop environment installed which Depends: on
> a web browser.  So, when you uninstall one, it falls back to a different
> one, in order to satisfy this dependency.
>
> If firefox-esr is currently installed, then you can ask aptitude what's
> keeping it here:
>
> aptitude why firefox-esr
In my case it is meta package gnome-core. It is a pity that it doesn't 
have an alternative dependency on www-browser, this would be satisfied 
by google-chrome-stable, which I prefer over chromium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237559

On 21-07-2021 06:17, Christian Britz wrote:
> On 20.07.21 19:58 Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:15:32PM -0400, andrehpb@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Good afternoon, I am uninstalling chromium from Debian 10 and the
>>> procedure automatically installs firefox and the same happens when
>>> uninstalling firefox. How to solve this? Thanks.
>> You probably have a desktop environment installed which Depends: on
>> a web browser.  So, when you uninstall one, it falls back to a different
>> one, in order to satisfy this dependency.
>>
>> If firefox-esr is currently installed, then you can ask aptitude what's
>> keeping it here:
>>
>> aptitude why firefox-esr
> In my case it is meta package gnome-core. It is a pity that it doesn't
> have an alternative dependency on www-browser, this would be satisfied
> by google-chrome-stable, which I prefer over chromium.

There are plenty of others, quite stable.
Falkon is as quick as any of them, if you're happy to work around one or
two minor discrepancies from a stripped down process that keeps it that
way.
I have three installed, because I do a little web design work, and I
need them for checking, but to each his own.
For example, I wouldn't touch Chrome.
Cheers!

Harry.

-- 
`When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty' 
-- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237560

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:38:12PM -0700, Weaver wrote:
> On 21-07-2021 06:17, Christian Britz wrote:
> > On 20.07.21 19:58 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> You probably have a desktop environment installed which Depends: on
> >> a web browser.  So, when you uninstall one, it falls back to a different
> >> one, in order to satisfy this dependency.
> >>
> >> If firefox-esr is currently installed, then you can ask aptitude what's
> >> keeping it here:
> >>
> >> aptitude why firefox-esr

> > In my case it is meta package gnome-core. It is a pity that it doesn't
> > have an alternative dependency on www-browser, this would be satisfied
> > by google-chrome-stable, which I prefer over chromium.

Yeah, that is... odd.

Even more odd, there's a 9-year-old bug open for it (sort of):

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=662150

> There are plenty of others, quite stable.
> Falkon is as quick as any of them, if you're happy to work around [...]

The issue isn't that a given web browser is well- or ill-suited, but
rather that the Debian package named "gnome-core" has the following
hard-coded dependency:

unicorn:~$ apt-cache show gnome-core | grep firefox
Depends: [...] firefox-esr (>= 78) | firefox (>= 78) | chromium | chromium-browser | epiphany-browser, [...]

In other words, it only accepts the browsers specifically stated in that
list, and will not permit you to substitute any other.

I'm not even sure whether you can hack around it using equivs.  I know
that works for virtual packages like www-browser or mail-transport-agent
but I don't know whether it can be made to lie about having one of those
five specific packages installed.

Of course, the most obvious answer is "just install firefox-esr, even if
you don't use it".  (Well, second most obvious, after "purge gnome-core".)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237561

On 20.07.21 23:00 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> unicorn:~$ apt-cache show gnome-core | grep firefox
> Depends: [...] firefox-esr (>= 78) | firefox (>= 78) | chromium | chromium-browser | epiphany-browser, [...]
>
> In other words, it only accepts the browsers specifically stated in that
> list, and will not permit you to substitute any other.
Exactly. They should simply add "gnome-www-browser | www-browser" and 
everybody could be happy. One of the reasons why I prefer Google Chrome, 
is that I am already on bullseye and Chromium was (is?) always very 
outdated on testing. I know that testing has no security support, but I 
need secuity patches in time for a package that is so close to the front 
like an internet browser. (And personally, I like the full Google 
integration of Chrome.)
> I'm not even sure whether you can hack around it using equivs.  I know

You can, I remember doing it.

> that works for virtual packages like www-browser or mail-transport-agent
> but I don't know whether it can be made to lie about having one of those
> five specific packages installed.
Using the "provides" field.

> Of course, the most obvious answer is "just install firefox-esr, even if

Doing it that way currently. It actually turned out that having a second 
browser installed can be handy from time to time (knowing that 
firefox-esr in testing is also outdated sometimes).

> you don't use it".  (Well, second most obvious, after "purge gnome-core".)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237565

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:17:26PM +0200, Christian Britz wrote:
>In my case it is meta package gnome-core. It is a pity that it doesn't 
>have an alternative dependency on www-browser, this would be satisfied 
>by google-chrome-stable, which I prefer over chromium.

www-browser is not required to be a 'graphical' browser; it is satisfied
by Lynx, for example. There used to be an 'x-www-browser' which was
meant to describe X11 browsers, which no longer exists, and would be a
bit inaccurate in the "age of Wayland", too. But fundamentally the
browser-related virtual packages are a mess and need cleaning up.

-- 
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237566

	Hi.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:38:00AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:17:26PM +0200, Christian Britz wrote:
> > In my case it is meta package gnome-core. It is a pity that it
> > doesn't have an alternative dependency on www-browser, this would be
> > satisfied by google-chrome-stable, which I prefer over chromium.
> 
> www-browser is not required to be a 'graphical' browser; it is satisfied
> by Lynx, for example. There used to be an 'x-www-browser' which was
> meant to describe X11 browsers, which no longer exists, and would be a
> bit inaccurate in the "age of Wayland", too. But fundamentally the
> browser-related virtual packages are a mess and need cleaning up.

One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237567 — virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
>role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
>browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
>surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?

It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME. It's not clear what the
purpose of that name should be, as it's not declared in Policy's list of
virtual package names. Policy states

     "Packages MUST NOT use virtual package names (except privately,
     amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been
     agreed upon and appear in this list."

So it doesn't *need* to be included in the authoritative list¹ so long
as it's only in use amongst a "private, cooperating group of packages".

This is an area of interest for me (virtual package names, what Policy
dictates, how we describe what they mean, semantically; how we do so in
a way such that we can check their usage in the archive mechanically,
etc.) so I might try to pick up my work on improving it post-bullseye.

¹ https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy/-/blob/master/virtual-package-names-list.yaml

-- 
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237568 — Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
> > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
> > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
> > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?
> 
> It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME.

I lost you here.

A user installs GNOME DE, one way or another. A user gets a browser,
which is suitable for GNOME DE. That's the way gnome-core currently
works, there's nothing wrong here.

Another user does not install GNOME DE, but installs a browser, which
just happens to be either firefox-esr, chromium or epiphany-browser.
First two are popular, popcon should show this.

Currently (as of stable) firefox-esr, chromium and epiphany-browser
provide gnome-www-browser. gnome-core directly depends on either on
these three packages.

Hence the GNOME user will get at least one of these packages, and can
even install all three at the same time.

Non-GNOME user will get gnome-www-browser by installing either of these
three packages, because of Provides. And if non-GNOME user wants this,
a user can install even all three at the same time.

Again, the current stable behaves like this, so I do not understand how
exactly replacing dependency on gnome-core will cause a confusion for
non-GNOME user. I'd expect some breakage for GNOME users, but I cannot
imagine where exactly it could happen.
After all, Provides merely does what it's supposed to do, it does not
force additional packages on a user.


> This is an area of interest for me (virtual package names, what Policy
> dictates, how we describe what they mean, semantically; how we do so in
> a way such that we can check their usage in the archive mechanically,
> etc.) so I might try to pick up my work on improving it post-bullseye.

As always, any attempt on improving Debian is welcome, regardless of the
outcome. It's not like Debian needs an improvement IMO, but
nevertheless.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237570 — Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:05:10PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
> > > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
> > > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
> > > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?
> > 
> > It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME.
> 
> I lost you here.

The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there.  "Such a
role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to
act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts,
not just the dependency list of gnome-core.

The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies
to suggest gnome-www-browser.

Perhaps the developers should consider a different virtual package name
which omits the "x-" part and also the "gnome-" part.  Maybe something
like gui-www-browser.  But this isn't my area of expertise, so feel free
to ignore my suggestion if it's unsuitable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237571 — Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)

	Hi.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:36:09AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:05:10PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
> > > > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
> > > > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
> > > > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?
> > > 
> > > It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME.
> > 
> > I lost you here.
> 
> The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there.  "Such a
> role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to
> act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts,
> not just the dependency list of gnome-core.
> 
> The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies
> to suggest gnome-www-browser.

I see, thank you.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237580 — Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:36:09AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there.  "Such a
>role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to
>act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts,
>not just the dependency list of gnome-core.
>
>The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies
>to suggest gnome-www-browser.

Sorry yes, that's right. A concrete example was this lxde bug I filed 5
years ago: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833268

>Perhaps the developers should consider a different virtual package name
>which omits the "x-" part and also the "gnome-" part.  Maybe something
>like gui-www-browser.  But this isn't my area of expertise, so feel free
>to ignore my suggestion if it's unsuitable.

I started mocking something up earlier today and that's exactly the name
I picked too :-)

-- 
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web