New Firefox vs. Up2date

[Jonathan Berry]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:19:23 -0800, Jonathan Ryshpan
<jonrysh at pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:27 -0800, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > The Red Hat Network Notification Tool (KDE Applet) tells me correctly
> > that there is a new version of Firefox available.  The version on the
> > nachine is firefox-1.0-2.fc3.x86_64.rpm, while the latest version on the
> > server is firefox-1.0.1-1.3.1.x86_64.rpm.  Nevertheless, up2date doesn't
> > report the new version as available for installation.
> >
> > Does anyone know why this is?  Is the new firefox worth hand
> > installation?
> 
> Many people have suggested that the problem is with the mirror list that
> I have in /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources, and that the problem will go away
> if only I wait a while or edit .../sources to have only one source for
> updates.  In fact:
> 
> (1) The problem has persisted for about 3 days, ever since 25-Feb.

I did not experience any problems updating my i386 machine.  I did
have trouble with my x86_64 laptop, but I attributed it to the fact
that I have the 32-bit version of Firefox installed so I can use
plugins.

> (2) I don't have a mirror list; I use a single server.  The key line
> in .../sources is:
> yum updates-released-fc3 http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/core/updates/3/x86_64
> This is reflected by a message from up2date in one of its start screens,
> namely:
> Channel Information
> yum channel fedora-core-3 from  http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/core/3/x86_64/os
> And, in fact, firefox-1.0.1-1.3.1.x86_64.rpm is present on this server.

And this never changes?  Actually, I think David Curry may have hit on
the problem.  It seems (if I remember correctly) that I downloaded the
i386 RPM and did an rpm -Uvh, but it wouldn't do it because it said
that the version installed was newer.  You may have to remove the
package and install the newer one in this case.  That doesn't explain
why yum worked on my i386 desktop.

> (3) BTW: No-one has given an opinion about whether it's worth while to
> update firefox by hand.

Yes I did! :)  In case you missed it, the answer was "yes," because
there have been some security updates in the newer version according
to the announce email.  It should take you less time to do this than
it did for you to write your two emails, so I don't see a reason not
too :).

> Thanks to all for your quick replies:
> --
> Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh at pacbell.net>
> Berkeley Linux Team

Jonathan