To remove any possibility of duplicate installations, yes. You may have to run it multiple times, depending on how many times you tried installing it without removing or upgrading the previous package. You can check with the following:

However, if you're wnating to just upgrade a package (if it hasn't been installed multiple times), you can simply run upgradepkg, and it will handle the removal of the old one and the installation of the new one.

but surely if i remove this, how can i call upgradepkg on something that's not there anymore?

Reminder: upgradepkg installs the new package then remove one with the same base name (in this case mozilla-firefox), without checking its version or anything. That works for "alien" packages as with installpkg and removepkg.

If you remove mozilla-firefox-36.0.1-x86_64-1ro first, you can either use installpkg or slackpkg install or upgradepkg --install-new.

Only difference, slackpkg install will only work for official packages.

Thanks for the reply.
I removed 'mozilla-firefox-36.0.1-x86_64-1ro'

leaving me with nothing related to firefox in /var/log/packages.

I then ran:
which re-installed v 36.

But i still have the same problem that when i run 'slackpkg upgrade-all', slackpkg still gives me the option of installing version 17.

I am very confused. I realise v17 might be the latest in the repository, but i dont want it to give me the option of installing that. Do i just ignore it?

Add it to /etc/slackpkg/blacklist. An entry containing mozilla-firefox should suffice.

added:

blacklist mozilla-firefox

into my blacklist file but i'm still getting the option to "upgrade" to version 17 when i run 'slackpkg upgrade-all'.
i think i need a lie down.

The command was wrong, but I have edited it while you were using it, sorry.

Thank you all, seems okay now.
Going to read the slackbook this weekend methinks.

Thanks again.

Hi,

I'm running vectorlinux lite and trying to update my Firefox from v19, on my i586. I tried the subject script and found I had to edit it to manually select i586 and to choose a version. I chose 45.2.0, the current latest version being 48, I guess. I surmised that I could grab a version 45 for i586 but was not certain about v48. Anyway, the script had been written only to look for i686 packages.

For years, I have waited for a new compilation of firefox for vector, finally, none appearing, I realized for the first time I could install slackware packages so that is what I am now attempting. I finally got around to it when my email stopped working good enough and didn't work at all.

After editing as noted, the script got as far as echoing that it saved /tmp/repackage-mozilla-firefox/src/mozilla-firefox.desktop, then echoed that it had connected to https://download.mozilla.org/?produc...nux&lang=en-US and was resolving the download but then it did not like the certificate and it shut down. I could not see in the script where it would have hung up, but the error messages about the certificate did not come from within the script. After it shut down, I could find no such file (written above) saved anywhere.

Any assistance will be appreciated.

Also, I want to know from which directory I ought to be running this script. I was just running it in root (just above home directory).

And more generally, I welcome anybody's 2 cents regarding the advantages I might enjoy if I change my OS to slackware. I started running vector lite because of its advertised quickness and lack of fluff, but how can it be better than slackware, in regard to that aspect, if it is based on slackware? - Especially for a guy who doesn't like to gui or have things done for him by anyone but his long-time personal butler.

I don't really have a butler (but I would like one), but you see my point.

Regards,

Sam

And good news for those using the vanilla version from mozilla.org
Firefox 48.0 includes patches making it possible to use it with the newest gtk .
Radio buttons, slide bar and the like are now displayed correctly with gtk 3.20.x

.

There shouldn't be any reason to get something other than the i686 as it is very unlikely that your processor doesn't support that. Just because many of the packages in the OS are i586 doesn't mean that your packages need to be.

As for your issue with the script, please paste all the output and put them within [code][/code] tags so we can try and diagnose your issue. However, this may be an issue specific with Vector and we may not be familiar enough with the distro to help (even though it is based on Slackware, it is not Slackware).

This shouldn't matter.

I'm not very familiar with Vector, but they probably follow the one app per task philosophy, meaning that it doesn't provide you choice like Slackware does. I doubt this leads to things being quicker (except you don't have to look through as many items on a menu), but it would lead to a smaller install (but that's not a big deal to most with the sizes of harddrives).

But you are in the Slackware forum, so I'd imagine most people would suggest just switching to Slackware (me included).

You do not need to do that and should not do that!

Exactly!

P.S. Even if the user did want to change the version or arch, there is zero reason to edit the script. You can just define the variable outside of the script and the script will use this instead.

This implies that your ca-certificates package is out of date because the cert on https://download.mozilla.org is valid.

1 members found this post helpful.

Oh and if you want to run the script verbosely, you can just run it with:

That will print out all of its steps as it performs them.

Firefox does not produce a i586 binary package (look in http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/48.0/ to confirm this for yourself). Not that it matters, since as bassmadrigal pointed out, you almost certainly do want i586, which is likely to run on your system just fine.

You need to update your ca-certificates package but in the mean time, get the i686 package manually like this:

Then (from the same directory) run an unmodified version of latest-firefox.sh script like this:

P.S. Just for clarity you could suggest an architecture like this (you don't need to but you could):

That would still result in the use of i686 of course, since there is no i586, as I pointed out previously.

1 members found this post helpful.