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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #202150 > unrolled thread

Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome

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

Contents

  Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome David Parker <dparker@utica.edu> - 2018-11-05 18:00 +0100
    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-11-05 18:10 +0100
    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-11-05 18:10 +0100
      Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome David Parker <dparker@utica.edu> - 2018-11-05 20:30 +0100
        Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-11-05 20:40 +0100
          Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-11-05 20:50 +0100
        Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-11-06 03:20 +0100
        Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-11-06 13:50 +0100
          Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-11-06 16:00 +0100
            Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-11-07 16:50 +0100
              Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-11-08 03:00 +0100
                Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 17:00 +0100
                  Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-11-08 17:10 +0100
                    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-11-09 03:20 +0100
                      Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-11-09 12:50 +0100
                    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-11-09 12:50 +0100
                      Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-11-26 10:50 +0100
      Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 03:10 +0100
    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-11-06 09:50 +0100
    Re: Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 20:10 +0100

#202150 — Removing firefox-esr also removes gnome

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

Hello,

I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
will also be uninstalled.  Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome alone?

Thanks!

# apt-get remove firefox-esr
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
required:
  empathy empathy-common fonts-stix hyphen-en-us libdiscid0 libjsoncpp1
libreoffice libreoffice-help-en-us libreoffice-report-builder-bin
libtelepathy-farstream3 mythes-en-us sound-juicer telepathy-gabble
  telepathy-salut
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  firefox-esr gnome gnome-core iceweasel libarchive12 libepc-1.0-3
libepc-ui-1.0-3 libgnutls-deb0-28 libgnutls28 libhogweed2 libhogweed2:i386
libnettle4 libnettle4:i386 task-gnome-desktop
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 14 to remove and 82 not upgraded.
After this operation, 121 MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.



-- 
Dave Parker '11
Database & Systems Administrator
Utica College
Integrated Information Technology Services
(315) 792-3229
Registered Linux User #408177

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#202151

	Hi.

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
> However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
> will also be uninstalled.  Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
> firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome alone?

Both packages are metapackages that do not provide any contents but only
dependencies to other packages.

$ apt-cache show gnome | grep Section
Section: metapackages
$ apt-cache show gnome-core | grep Section
Section: metapackages

Seeing this Depends in gnome-core:

Depends: ...firefox-esr (>= 30) | firefox (>= 30) | chromium...

I suggest you to install chromium first if you value gnome-core for some
reason.

Reco

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

#202152

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
> firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome alone?

apt-cache show gnome-core | grep Depends

It says "... firefox-esr (>= 30) | firefox (>= 30) | chromium ..."
so you would need to replace firefox-esr with one of those two
alternatives instead of just flat-out trying to remove it.

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

#202160

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

Thanks for the information.  I guess I'm just surprised that the
dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium.  Seems like other
browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.

    - Dave


On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:01 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> > Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
> > firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome
> alone?
>
> apt-cache show gnome-core | grep Depends
>
> It says "... firefox-esr (>= 30) | firefox (>= 30) | chromium ..."
> so you would need to replace firefox-esr with one of those two
> alternatives instead of just flat-out trying to remove it.
>
>

-- 
Dave Parker '11
Database & Systems Administrator
Utica College
Integrated Information Technology Services
(315) 792-3229
Registered Linux User #408177

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

#202162

	Hi.

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:24:22PM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> Thanks for the information.  I guess I'm just surprised that the
> dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium.

Other browsers don't have whatever it takes to make chrome-gnome-shell
working. Or are proprietary.


> Seems like other browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left
> out.

It's been two years since they discontinued Iceweasel.

Reco

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

#202163

On 06/11/2018 08:37, Reco wrote:
>> Seems like other browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left
>> out.
> It's been two years since they discontinued Iceweasel.

Iceweasel was just Debian's Firefox rebranded to address trademark and 
logo licensing issues 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian#Iceweasel>. 
In June 2016, the iceweasel package was replaced with the firefox-esr 
package.

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

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

#202176

On 06/11/2018 04.24, David Parker wrote:
> Thanks for the information.  I guess I'm just surprised that the 
> dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium.  Seems like 
> other browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.
https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security

-- 
John

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

#202182

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:24:22PM -0500, David Parker wrote:
>Thanks for the information.  I guess I'm just surprised that the
>dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium.  Seems like other
>browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.

This is partially because we don't have a virtual package for
"x-www-browser" (I think we should, but haven't done the work to
convince anyone of this yet), although there is a "gnome-www-browser".

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#202193

	Hi.

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:42:39PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:24:22PM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> > Thanks for the information.  I guess I'm just surprised that the
> > dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium.  Seems like other
> > browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.
> 
> This is partially because we don't have a virtual package for
> "x-www-browser" (I think we should, but haven't done the work to
> convince anyone of this yet), although there is a "gnome-www-browser".

So it kind of makes sense for gnome-core to depend on gnome-www-browser,
isn't it? Or there's a reason why using gnome-www-browser is unsuitable
for GNOME DE?

Reco

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

#202231

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>So it kind of makes sense for gnome-core to depend on gnome-www-browser,
>isn't it? Or there's a reason why using gnome-www-browser is unsuitable
>for GNOME DE?

Yeah that makes perfect sense in that case. I think we need an
x-www-browser for some other situations, when any other package ships a
.desktop shortcut that launches /usr/bin/x-www-browser for instance
(such as LXDE does, but depends on www-browser, which can be satisfied
by w3m which does not register an alternative for x-www-browser, thus
the link in LXDE does not work)


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#202242

On 08/11/2018 00.47, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>> So it kind of makes sense for gnome-core to depend on gnome-www-browser,
>> isn't it? Or there's a reason why using gnome-www-browser is unsuitable
>> for GNOME DE?
> 
> Yeah that makes perfect sense in that case. I think we need an
> x-www-browser for some other situations, when any other package ships a
> .desktop shortcut that launches /usr/bin/x-www-browser for instance
> (such as LXDE does, but depends on www-browser, which can be satisfied
> by w3m which does not register an alternative for x-www-browser, thus
> the link in LXDE does not work)

www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a 
bug in the LXDE metapackage?

-- 
John

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

#202263

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
>www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a 
>bug in the LXDE metapackage?

It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: what should the metapackage
actually depend upon, given x-www-browser virtual package does not exist
yet?


* or arguably whichever concrete lxde package actually contains the
  shortcut definition

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#202266

	Hi.

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:53:54PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a bug in the LXDE metapackage?
> 
> It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: what should the metapackage
> actually depend upon, given x-www-browser virtual package does not exist
> yet?
> 
> * or arguably whichever concrete lxde package actually contains the
>  shortcut definition

lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
x-www-browser.

Reco

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

#202275

On 09/11/2018 00.59, Reco wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:53:54PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
>>> www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a bug in the LXDE metapackage?
>>
>> It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: what should the metapackage
>> actually depend upon, given x-www-browser virtual package does not exist
>> yet?
>>
>> * or arguably whichever concrete lxde package actually contains the
>>   shortcut definition
> 
> lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
> irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
> x-www-browser.

Can a package depend on a non-existant virtual package?
Is x-www-browser due to be added to the official Debian virtual package  
list?
(  
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
Items in that list which are also Debian alternatives should be marked  
with a * but some have been missed. )

At the moment www-browser is a virtual package, but not a registered  
Debian alternative, while x-www-browser is an alternative but not a VP. :|

I suppose a workaround for the LXDE package would be to depend  
on/recommend/suggest any of a list of usable X browsers, like:
Suggests: firefox | firefox-esr | chromium ...
The choice of safe possibilities for that list might be quite limited.

BTW if a package ships a .desktop file evoking x-www-browser, is it not  
obliged to Depend on (rather than Recommend/Suggest) a package which  
provides that alternative? Or would a TryExec field in the .desktop file  
be enough to cover it?

-- 
John

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

#202280

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:12:29AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
>Can a package depend on a non-existant virtual package?

It can, but this is likely a bug if it happens.

>Is x-www-browser due to be added to the official Debian virtual 
>package list?

I'm advocating for x-www-browser to exist, but haven't done the work
to make it so. Note that the authorative list of virtual package names
in policy is out of date. (I have some other ideas about fixing that
which I want to pick up too)

>At the moment www-browser is a virtual package, but not a registered 
>Debian alternative, while x-www-browser is an alternative but not a 
>VP. :|

www-browser is an alternative, provided by (at least) lynx.

>I suppose a workaround for the LXDE package would be to depend 
>on/recommend/suggest any of a list of usable X browsers, like:
>Suggests: firefox | firefox-esr | chromium ...
>The choice of safe possibilities for that list might be quite limited.

Yes, but that is effectively doing the work of defining a virtual
package but in the LXDE dependencies. We might as well do it properly and
in the right place from the start.

>BTW if a package ships a .desktop file evoking x-www-browser, is it 
>not obliged to Depend on (rather than Recommend/Suggest) a package 
>which provides that alternative? Or would a TryExec field in the 
>.desktop file be enough to cover it?

Personally I agree that this should be a Depends:. I'm not sure the LXDE
maintainers agree. I think Recommends: would be acceptable *if* LXDE's
behaviour was to not show the button/shortcut if the path it was
pointing at was non-existent (perhaps this is achieved via TryExec=).
But that's not the current behaviour.


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#202279

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:59:48PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
>irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
>x-www-browser.

Yes. That's exactly what I am advocating in the bug I reported about
this (=833268, in 2016). I haven't yet re-assigned the bug to the
correct real package though.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#202764

On 09/11/2018 20.40, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:59:48PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>> lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
>> irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
>> x-www-browser.
> 
> Yes. That's exactly what I am advocating in the bug I reported about
> this (=833268, in 2016). I haven't yet re-assigned the bug to the
> correct real package though.
> 

Thank you for looking at this, anyway!
-- 
John

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

#202175

On 2018-11-05, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
>> Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
>> firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome alone?
>
> apt-cache show gnome-core | grep Depends
>
> It says "... firefox-esr (>= 30) | firefox (>= 30) | chromium ..."
> so you would need to replace firefox-esr with one of those two
> alternatives instead of just flat-out trying to remove it.
>
>
A slightly more economical evocation:

	apt depends gnome-core

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

#202178

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

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
> However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
> will also be uninstalled.  Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
> firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome alone?
> 
> Thanks!

If you know what you are doing, you can also use equivs [1] [2] to
let the package manager believe that some dependency is satisfied.

As always, lying comes at a cost, the minimum being to remember what
lies you've told so-far :-)

Cheers

[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_the_equivs_package
[2] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/equivs

-- tomás

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

#202236

On 11/5/18, David Parker <dparker@utica.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
> However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
> will also be uninstalled.  Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
> firefox-esr, and how I can just uninstall firefox-esr and leave Gnome
> alone?
>
> Thanks!
>
> # apt-get remove firefox-esr
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
> required:
>   empathy empathy-common fonts-stix hyphen-en-us libdiscid0 libjsoncpp1
> libreoffice libreoffice-help-en-us libreoffice-report-builder-bin
> libtelepathy-farstream3 mythes-en-us sound-juicer telepathy-gabble
>   telepathy-salut
> Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them.


I saw the other interesting information that was directly about your
question. This part about "are no longer required" caught my eye
because it references LibreOffice. Is that on purpose on your part,
meaning had you decided that was no longer needed?

In advance, I understand that it could be some "metapackage" thing or
something, but I just did a quick check on my setup. This second I'm
in a couple year old Buster (out of necessity/desperation). It's just
been upgraded except for packages still on hold by Developers.

LibreOffice stood its ground in mine throughout while I just upgraded
800 packages @ 295MB (with those other 434 [outdated] plus 456 new
totaling 883 MB still on hold).

As long as I'm here with that curiosity about LibreOffice no longer
being needed, LibreOffice's "apt-cache show LibreOffice" output had a
nice quip that helped me further understand apt/apt-get's thought
process even more:

"[LibreOffice's metapackage] also recommends additional packages (e.g.
fonts) in order to match an upstream LibreOffice install as closely as
possible."

Ohhhhh, ok, so recommended files are at least in part about us users
replicating Developers' setups more completely? That's how my brain's
interpreting that right there. I can see the rationale when it comes
to doing things like actively filing bug reports. If that specific has
come up previously on Debian-User, it just *pffft* right overhead that
time. :)


> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   firefox-esr gnome gnome-core iceweasel libarchive12 libepc-1.0-3
> libepc-ui-1.0-3 libgnutls-deb0-28 libgnutls28 libhogweed2 libhogweed2:i386
> libnettle4 libnettle4:i386 task-gnome-desktop
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 14 to remove and 82 not upgraded.
> After this operation, 121 MB disk space will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.


Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web