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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #239639 > unrolled thread

APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

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

Contents

  APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable "Daniel M." <danielhl.83@googlemail.com> - 2021-09-03 19:30 +0200
    Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from  unstable Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2021-09-03 21:00 +0200
      Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from  unstable Oliver Schoede <oliver.schode@online.de> - 2021-09-05 21:00 +0200
        Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from  unstable "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-09-05 21:40 +0200
          Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from  unstable Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-09-05 22:10 +0200
          Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 22:20 +0200
    Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-04 15:10 +0200
      Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable "Daniel M." <danielhl.83@googlemail.com> - 2021-09-04 15:30 +0200
        Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-04 18:00 +0200
          Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-04 18:40 +0200
    Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from  unstable Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-12 09:20 +0200

#239639 — APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

Hi everyone,

I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set up to
900 testing, 500 unstable. Default-Release is set to "testing".

The debian package tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox)
states that version 91.0.1-1 of firefox should be available, but I can
in no way install it. "apt -t unstable install firefox" doesn't work,
neither does "apt install firefox/unstable". Both get me version 88
again. "apt-cache policy firefox" also only lists this version. If I
remove firefox and install it again with one of these ways I again get
version88.

What am I doing wrong? Shouldn't I be able to install version 91 via
one of these ways?

Please spare me the talk about not mixing debian suites - I usually
know what I'm doing. I've been running debian for over 10 years now.
This is the first time apt/dpkg is too high for me. Can anyone please
help?

Cheers,
Daniel

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#239646 — Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

On 2021-09-03 19:05 +0200, Daniel M. wrote:

> I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
> 88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
> unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set up to
> 900 testing, 500 unstable. Default-Release is set to "testing".
>
> The debian package tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox)
> states that version 91.0.1-1 of firefox should be available, but I can
> in no way install it. "apt -t unstable install firefox" doesn't work,
> neither does "apt install firefox/unstable". Both get me version 88
> again. "apt-cache policy firefox" also only lists this version. If I
> remove firefox and install it again with one of these ways I again get
> version88.
>
> What am I doing wrong? Shouldn't I be able to install version 91 via
> one of these ways?

Version 91 is only in experimental.

Cheers,
       Sven

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

#239722 — Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>Version 91 is only in experimental.
>

Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
possible please get a flatpak and get on with your life. Debian is
providing that for a reason, too. We've been at the same point about a
year ago when on some mailing list it was suggested Debian should just
provide a flatpak. A joke of course, well I think it was. Still I
decided to actually give it a try and have been happily using two of
these since then, Firefox, and Chromium, which itself is too often
vulnerable in Sid. Perhaps in the future distributions should really
consider making do with, say, Firefox ESR and direct users who need
"more" to something anyone can sort of agree on and flock together,
that might well be avenues like Flatpak or AppImage. Container
solutions are certainly not the be-all and end-all but I don't see much
of a drawback for a case like this. You'll spend about a GiB extra,
it's basically pulling its own small userland, once. Command line use
needs some getting used to, kind of like systemd, hardly surprising if
you know where it's from. But easy enough, same with desktop
integration. There's no sane reason for using an outdated web browser
today. If you want or need to stay purist, there is always ESR.

Oliver

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

#239725 — Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
> Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >Version 91 is only in experimental.
> >
> 
> Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
> possible please get a flatpak and get on with your life. Debian is
> providing that for a reason, too. We've been at the same point about a
> year ago when on some mailing list it was suggested Debian should just
> provide a flatpak. A joke of course, well I think it was. Still I
> decided to actually give it a try and have been happily using two of
> these since then, Firefox, and Chromium, which itself is too often
> vulnerable in Sid. Perhaps in the future distributions should really
> consider making do with, say, Firefox ESR and direct users who need
> "more" to something anyone can sort of agree on and flock together,
> that might well be avenues like Flatpak or AppImage. Container
> solutions are certainly not the be-all and end-all but I don't see much
> of a drawback for a case like this. You'll spend about a GiB extra,
> it's basically pulling its own small userland, once. Command line use
> needs some getting used to, kind of like systemd, hardly surprising if
> you know where it's from. But easy enough, same with desktop
> integration. There's no sane reason for using an outdated web browser
> today. If you want or need to stay purist, there is always ESR.
> 
> Oliver
> 

This is the problem with web browsers getting bigger, more complex 
dependencies, more infrastructure complexities - and it has always
been so. Web browsers are also the go-to applications for stress
testing any machine once again.

Flatpaks and appimages are fine if they can be built - there's every
chance that they, too witll be hit by this sort of thing at some
point.

Firefox ESR is actually releatively reasonable in terms of how fast
it moves - it still isn't easy for anyone to build. [And upstream
show no particular interest in Firefox for other architectures -
so have fun if you're running arm].

At some point, bookworm will settle a little more and it will be
feasible to start providing lots more in bullseye-backports. In
the interim

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

#239726 — Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

On Sun 05 Sep 2021 at 19:31:32 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
> > Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >Version 91 is only in experimental.
> > >
> > 
> > Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
> > possible please get a flatpak and get on with your life. Debian is
> > providing that for a reason, too. We've been at the same point about a
> > year ago when on some mailing list it was suggested Debian should just
> > provide a flatpak. A joke of course, well I think it was. Still I
> > decided to actually give it a try and have been happily using two of
> > these since then, Firefox, and Chromium, which itself is too often
> > vulnerable in Sid. Perhaps in the future distributions should really
> > consider making do with, say, Firefox ESR and direct users who need
> > "more" to something anyone can sort of agree on and flock together,
> > that might well be avenues like Flatpak or AppImage. Container
> > solutions are certainly not the be-all and end-all but I don't see much
> > of a drawback for a case like this. You'll spend about a GiB extra,
> > it's basically pulling its own small userland, once. Command line use
> > needs some getting used to, kind of like systemd, hardly surprising if
> > you know where it's from. But easy enough, same with desktop
> > integration. There's no sane reason for using an outdated web browser
> > today. If you want or need to stay purist, there is always ESR.
> > 
> > Oliver
> > 
> 
> This is the problem with web browsers getting bigger, more complex 
> dependencies, more infrastructure complexities - and it has always
> been so. Web browsers are also the go-to applications for stress
> testing any machine once again.

There aren't any extensive problem with Firefox on buster and bullseye.
Mine works, reliably.

Maybe there are reports that say otherwise?

> Flatpaks and appimages are fine if they can be built - there's every
> chance that they, too witll be hit by this sort of thing at some
> point.

Why bother with what Debian does not provide by default.

-- 
Brian.

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

#239727

On 9/5/21, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
>
> This is the problem with web browsers getting bigger, more complex
> dependencies, more infrastructure complexities - and it has always
> been so. Web browsers are also the go-to applications for stress
> testing any machine once again.


You nailed that! Mine keeps bogging down with 8GB ram and 2.7GHz dual
core. It's running with a smaller Firefox session's worth of tabs than
what ran for hours on 2GB ram and 1.66GHz dual core. I swear it feels
like their browsers are trained to sniff around to see what power
we've got then adjust their usage of our resources accordingly.

As an afterthought, maybe it's the websites themselves doing the
sniffing for available resources, too. Might not be like that, but
it's how it feels based on how I can't seem to get ahead of that game
here. I'm just so over it with respect to having to log out then log
back in to clear out the cobwebs when it starts grinding to a halt.

As a secondary afterthought turned heads up: In cleaning out my setup
regularly, I one day noticed a BUNCH of cookies at the top of the last
time used list when they should not have been. The relevance to
browser resource usage is that I hadn't been on the affected websites'
tabs in months.

A lot of cookies are respectfully sitting silent and unused, but there
are a few that are not. That's going to take an escalating toll on
available computer resources, too. One obvious quick fix would be to
manually block those cookies if they're not important and as they
become apparent.

Oh, and don't get me started griping about those websites that plant
70, 80, 100+ cookies per single or maybe two or three page turns on
their sites. I've seen that happen in the past while deleting a site's
entire cookie lineup because their site's not working properly.

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with birdseed *

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

#239675

"Daniel M." <danielhl.83@googlemail.com> writes:

> The debian package tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox)
> states that version 91.0.1-1 of firefox should be available, but I can
> in no way install it.

If you mean the line from that page "[2021-08-18] Accepted firefox
91.0.1-1 (source) into unstable (Mike Hommey)", that doesn't mean binary
packages are available as you've noticed.

I don't actually know where one could see when new binary packages are
added to unstable? Would be somewhat interesting.

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

#239676

> If you mean the line from that page "[2021-08-18] Accepted firefox
> 91.0.1-1 (source) into unstable (Mike Hommey)", that doesn't mean binary
> packages are available as you've noticed.
Okay, that explains it. In fact, i was referring to the versions table
in the left column.

> I don't actually know where one could see when new binary packages are
> added to unstable? Would be somewhat interesting.
If you scroll down to the bottom of this page:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/firefox

there seems to be a list of what is available in sid at the moment.
And that is still 88. Okay, thank you for explaining, I learned
something today :)

Am Sa., 4. Sept. 2021 um 15:02 Uhr schrieb Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi>:
>
> "Daniel M." <danielhl.83@googlemail.com> writes:
>
> > The debian package tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox)
> > states that version 91.0.1-1 of firefox should be available, but I can
> > in no way install it.
>
> If you mean the line from that page "[2021-08-18] Accepted firefox
> 91.0.1-1 (source) into unstable (Mike Hommey)", that doesn't mean binary
> packages are available as you've noticed.
>
> I don't actually know where one could see when new binary packages are
> added to unstable? Would be somewhat interesting.
>

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

#239683

Top posting and not quoting anything as I'm coming from a different POV.

If the OP needs firefox 91 (or whatever), there is another option, installing 
the package available from Mozilla as a separate executable.

(Aside: I had to do that (for an earlier version of Firefox) because a website 
that I must access periodically changed their design / minimum browser 
requirement (without publicizing it very well).)

I don't remember exactly what I had to do, but the instructions (and 
downloads) are available and reasonably easy to find on the Mozilla website.

Now I have two versions of Firefox installed (on my Jessie system (I know, I 
know, I still plan to install bookworm on a new (to me) system -- life seems 
to keep getting in the way).

If I simply start Firefox in the normal way (I type "Firefox" in the <alt><F2> 
textbox, I get the "current" version of Firefox installed in Jessie.

When I need the newer Firefox, I type /opt/firefox/firefox in the same  
<alt><F2> textbox.

IIUC, it is sort of a self-contained binary executable that doesn't depend on 
libraries or such from the "main" Debian Jessie system.

(I didn't notice that anyone else had suggested this, so I did -- sorry if it 
is a duplicate suggestion (or of no value).)

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

#239686

rhkramer@gmail.com writes:

> Top posting and not quoting anything as I'm coming from a different POV.
>
> If the OP needs firefox 91 (or whatever), there is another option, installing 
> the package available from Mozilla as a separate executable.

Sure. I've had an issue with the Debian Buster's packaged Firefox ESR so
I actually run LibreWolf from an AppImage. LibreWolf is a variant of
Firefox where they remove some things that they think violate your
privacy too much. AppImage is a packaging system where the app is
distributed as a single executable file. So compared to the Firefox
package Mozilla provides, the LibreWolf AppImage is a single file. I
just download the latest to /opt/bin and go...

I don't know if my issue is with Firefox ESR is still in Debian
Bullseye. I'll check that out, at some point...

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

#239898 — Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 03 sep 21, 19:05:23, Daniel M. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
> 88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
> unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set up to
> 900 testing, 500 unstable. Default-Release is set to "testing".

You might as well just get rid of your pinning, 500 is the default 
priority and setting Default-Release is raising the priority of testing 
to 990 anyway (`apt policy` should reflect that, otherwise something is 
wrong).

apt_preferences(5) suggests APT treats Default-Release special compared 
to some release with priority 990, so it's still worth using that 
instead of pinning to 990.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web