LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-16-2020, 06:03 AM   #1
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,456

Rep: Reputation: 240Reputation: 240Reputation: 240
upgradepkg mozjs doesn't find previously-installed mozjs


When I run
Code:
 upgradepkg  mozjs78-78.2.0esr-x86_64-1.txz
it doesn't find the already-installed mozjs68-68.11.0esr-x86_64-2, so I have to
Code:
 removepkg mozjs68-68.11.0esr-x86_64-2
first. This has been happening with mozjs for a number of versions.

Last edited by RandomTroll; 09-17-2020 at 07:18 AM.
 
Old 09-16-2020, 06:12 AM   #2
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 6,351

Rep: Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589
Code:
Tue Sep 15 18:51:00 UTC 2020
a/libgudev-234-x86_64-1.txz:  Upgraded.
ap/htop-3.0.2-x86_64-1.txz:  Upgraded.
l/glib2-2.66.0-x86_64-2.txz:  Rebuilt.
  Build against system gtk-doc and don't bundle a newer version. You'll need
  to reinstall the linuxdoc-tools package to restore the correct version of
  gtk-doc. Thanks to chrisVV.
l/mozjs68-68.11.0esr-x86_64-2.txz:  Removed.
l/mozjs78-78.2.0esr-x86_64-1.txz:  Added.
  This is needed by the new version of polkit.
l/polkit-0.118-x86_64-1.txz:  Upgraded.
  This requires the new mozjs78 package.
x/libva-2.9.0-x86_64-1.txz:  Upgraded.
x/libva-utils-2.9.0-x86_64-1.txz:  Upgraded.
+--------------------------+
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2020, 06:16 AM   #3
mlangdn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Kentucky
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,615

Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
If the changelog says a package is removed, one has to remove it manually, then add the new package.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2020, 06:19 AM   #4
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 6,351

Rep: Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589
Yep.

To remove a package:

# slackpkg clean-system
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2020, 06:30 AM   #5
Markus Wiesner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 72

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
A "renamed" package can also be upgraded by prepending the name of the old package followed by a percent sign:

Code:
upgradepkg mozjs68%mozjs78-78.2.0esr-x86_64-1.txz

Last edited by Markus Wiesner; 09-16-2020 at 06:31 AM.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-17-2020, 03:50 AM   #6
GazL
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2008
Distribution: CRUX
Posts: 5,547
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388
My update scripts handle this sort of thing for me without intervention, so it doesn't bother me, but is there any reason the package can't simply be named "mozjs" and avoid this issue?
 
Old 09-17-2020, 07:18 AM   #7
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,456

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 240Reputation: 240Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
is there any reason the package can't simply be named "mozjs" and avoid this issue?
Why isn't it already? As I have custom package management, I can add this to it. I didn't ask because I can't do it myself but because I don't understand why these aren't versions of the same package.
 
Old 09-17-2020, 10:01 AM   #8
chrisretusn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,290

Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
My update scripts handle this sort of thing for me without intervention, so it doesn't bother me, but is there any reason the package can't simply be named "mozjs" and avoid this issue?
I'm sure Patrick has his reasons for doing it this way. This is nothing new, he has done this for all the updates in ChangeLog.txt. Not a big deal for me, I always read ChangeLog.txt before running slackpkg.
 
Old 09-17-2020, 10:20 AM   #9
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 6,351

Rep: Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589Reputation: 2589
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisretusn View Post
Not a big deal for me, I always read ChangeLog.txt before running slackpkg.
Yes. I always do the same thing. Reading the changelog is a good way to avoid gotchas.
 
Old 09-17-2020, 11:32 AM   #10
chrisVV
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 426

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
My update scripts handle this sort of thing for me without intervention, so it doesn't bother me, but is there any reason the package can't simply be named "mozjs" and avoid this issue?
It is probably because different major versions of mozjs are both parallel installable and binary incompatible. So it makes for a reasonable case to enable a user to install more than one version.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old Yesterday, 04:15 AM   #11
gattocarlo
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2020
Posts: 31

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisVV View Post
It is probably because different major versions of mozjs are both parallel installable and binary incompatible. So it makes for a reasonable case to enable a user to install more than one version.
I think this is the case indeed. This is from AlienBOB ktown repo:

Code:
+--------------------------+
Sat Sep 19 18:33:19 UTC 2020
deps/mozjs68: added. This was originally a Slackware package that got removed,
  but the polkit package in 'ktown' still needs it.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] upgradepkg installed package as new zdolar Slackware 6 07-30-2020 08:47 AM
[SOLVED] Trouble compiling Firefox, mozjs, et al Bethlehem Linux From Scratch 7 06-09-2016 10:40 PM
[SOLVED] UPGRADEPKG doesn't overwrite and replace old libraries and links? Holering Slackware 7 01-26-2014 06:33 AM
Find location of packages previously installed with yum on fedora core 5 Tails and Link Linux - Newbie 8 04-30-2006 04:27 AM
Upgraded Kernel via upgradepkg Can't Find Modules KingofBLASH Slackware 2 03-03-2004 07:13 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration