SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Just comment out the appropriate mirror in /etc/slackpkg/mirrors. Then as root do "slackpkg update" and "slackpkg upgrade-all". This will provide you with all the security updates
Thanks!
I previously got some obsolete info about Slackware
Quote:
so all installation, upgrade and removal tasks continue to be performed with pkgtools, a set of very simple scripts that haven't changed much in years.
It is quite rare, but, on occasion new packages are introduced to the stable branch of Slackware. I generally run these commands when updating my Slackware boxes.
# slackpkg update
# slackpkg install-new
# slackpkg upgrade-all
This is a good guide on how to use slackpkg: slackpkg
As much as you should definitely be updating security patches with the details hitest gives, I personally allow Firefox and Thunderbird to update themselves. This not only keeps me up to date with patches faster than Pat can package them, but it also allows me to stay with my own language build (en_gb) rather than the default shipped en_us.
The only change you need to make is to give your user account write privileges to the firefox install directory e.g. /usr/lib{,64}/firefox-4.{0,1} and then the Firefox's own "Help -> Check for Updates" fuinctionality will work fine.
If you do this then you ought to blacklist firefox (and thunderbird) from slackpkg updates so you don't overwrite it with Pat's patches.
I personally allow Firefox and Thunderbird to update themselves.
This is what I had just come to the forum to ask. Firefox has been bugging me for a week to update, but I thought I would have to download the new FF 4.0.1 binary, but I went into the 'About Firefox' tab 'check for updates', and it updated to 4.0.1, and everything seems ok.
Last edited by clifford227; 05-10-2011 at 11:46 AM.
The only change you need to make is to give your user account write privileges to the firefox install directory e.g. /usr/lib{,64}/firefox-4.{0,1} and then the Firefox's own "Help -> Check for Updates" fuinctionality will work fine.
Which means that Firefox itself has write access to its own binaries. Which means scripts on web pages have write access to the Firefox binaries. I honestly wonder, how are you not pwned?
I'm not sure that there are so many exploits out there targeting to modify the Firefox binary itself. Still, that's a valid point. One can try running Firefox as root and doing the update that way (of course, you should use the root account only for that purpose, not for daily browsing use).
Take it up with Mozilla. Any user on any system allowed to use the update functionality must by implication have write access to the firefox install directory.
Take it up with Mozilla. Any user on any system allowed to use the update functionality must by implication have write access to the firefox install directory.
The whole concept of applications updating themselves. I don't recall ever seeing that before Windows (and I've been computing since about 1982).
The Unix model is that regular users (and hence applications they invoke) do not have write access to files which affect the the system globally.
The Linux model of software updating is for root to compile from source, or else for root to invoke the package manager which updates binaries on her behalf.
Do we really want to adopt the Windows way of maintaining our systems?
I don't want to criticize any Linux administrator's methods. Rather I want to understand what other administrators do, and thus learn better methods for my own purposes. As a Kubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron administrator, I too am faced with the Firefox update problem.
Also, I don't want to drag the thread off topic, especially since it is marked solved. It just seems to me that OP stated his desire for updating was based on security interest. Thus I do believe these questions are relevant to the topic.
Pat V. used to re-package the 32-bit pre-compiled version as a Slackware package and build from source the 64-bit version. However, in 13.37, he's started building both from source.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.