Fix Yum Error Firefox Conflicts With Xulrunner (Solved)

Home > Yum Error > Yum Error Firefox Conflicts With Xulrunner

Yum Error Firefox Conflicts With Xulrunner

See Deploying XULRunner for more information. Try to intsall xulrunner via yum. (or try to run RNHQA for gnome-python2-extras) Actual results: Yum does not complain until rpm fails. Lamar Owen at Apr 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm ⇧ [Ah! If you want to help with XULRunner but don't know where to start, visit the XULRunner:Community page and ask questions on the newsgroups or the IRC channel. his comment is here

Cleaned it up and it worked. Current Version The current version of XULRunner 1.9.2 is 3.6.26, matching Firefox 3.6.26 Detailed release notes can be found here. reply | permalink Lamar Owen [Ah! Pagination in SQL Server more hot questions question feed about us tour help blog chat data legal privacy policy work here advertising info mobile contact us feedback Technology Life / Arts

reply I have the same problem and Permalink Submitted by Alex (not verified) on Tue, 2012-09-04 10:47. Well, nspluginwrapper requires gecko-libs = 1.9, and I think I'm seeing the same problem. Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription. Did you ignore similar warnings?

Uninstalling XULRunner Linux From a command prompt, run xulrunner --unregister-global or xulrunner --unregister-user to unregister XULRunner just as you registered it during installation. Raw Hide is way to conservative.:D RahulSundaram6th September 2010, 10:07 PMHi, If you want Firefox 4 in a repo, refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox_4 jvillain7th September 2010, 09:18 PMThanks for the link but To know whats new in firefox 26 check release notes. I have the same problem and yum clean all is not fixing.

You can do so from the command line like this (below command will not disable repositories permanently). yum update --skip-broken reply broken is good for me Permalink Submitted by Fish Laser (not verified) on Wed, 2010-06-02 16:38. --skip-broken worked for me but I guess I am only masking Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): xulrunner-1.9-0.beta5.4.el5 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. delta rpms and all that still works with a simple http server.

For a mvcc you'd need abackend tohave an actual DB, scripting backend and such...Ah, yes, sort of like, well, a real version control system.mark, who used to be expert with PVCS, Add Answer [hide preview] community wiki (karma is not awarded & many others can edit wiki post) Use your votes! However, I have details in my notes where sealert has advised against running the command, both in reference to firefox and other apps. But, I cannotget it to install.

I'd just remove the 64-bit Xulrunner but I don't know if anything else requires it (e.g. 64-bit Thunderbird?) Top pschaff Retired Moderator Posts: 18276 Joined: 2006/12/13 20:15:34 Location: Tidewater, Virginia, North Basically if you upgrade xulrunner in order to update firefox javascript probably won't work. Then, have abackgroundprocess, or even triggers, clean up the files that are no longer needed...However... (see below) This is very different than the delta rpms though... We'd tag something as agiven release, and you exported by tag to get the full release as of thatdate.

And yum update will still generate errors:Skipping filters plugin, no data --> Running transaction check ---> Package glibc-headers.x86_64 0:2.18-11.fc20 will be updated --> Processing Dependency: glibc-headers = 2.18-11.fc20 for package: glibc-devel-2.18-11.fc20.x86_64 The /var is only 25%. You did find it useful and it is in fact useful since I am running Rawhide with that repo. Comment 5 Christopher Aillon 2008-05-08 18:04:16 EDT Well, the problem is that this error is occuring because the Requires SHOULD have been there but wasn't.

I know I have rpm 4.4.2, so its strange, thaht it gives me missing dependency for it): # yum install rpm Loading "security" plugin Loading "rhnplugin" plugin rhel-i386-client-5 100% |=========================| 1.3 delta rpms and allthat still works with a simple http server. All the packages seem to be there.*******************************************************************************Gilbert Sebenste ********(My opinions only!) ************************************************************************************* reply Tweet Search Discussions Search All Groups centos 13 responses Oldest Nested Karanbir Singh you need to wait for Back from the loonybin I see....

Yay! Now we (well, not CentOS, but upstream Fedora at least) have presto, and, yeah, it works great. First check system requirements for installing forefox latest version Note - This article has been outdated.

reply | permalink Sorin Srbu Wait for the sync to complete in a few days? -- /Sorin Sorin Srbu at Apr 6, 2011 at 10:14 am ⇧ -----Original Message-----From: centos-bounces at

UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. For a mvcc you'd need abackend tohave an actual DB, scripting backend and such...Ah, yes, sort of like, well, a real version control system.mark, who used to be expert with PVCS, Would that mean installing xulrunner (w/o firefox) would remove the old firefox? Frequently Asked Questions Why is installing XULRunner so painful?

It is a fairly large change and taking time. Quote Postby pschaff » 2010/08/01 02:39:31 Have you tried :yum clean all"?On an up to date x86_64 system I haveCode: Select all# rpm -q firefox xulrunner thunderbird
firefox-3.6.7-3.el5.centos.i386
firefox-3.6.7-3.el5.centos.x86_64
xulrunner-1.9.2.7-3.el5.x86_64
xulrunner-1.9.2.7-3.el5.i386

Fedora 15 will be a separate branch in the future. Problem solved Permalink Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2009-04-08 21:05. But I was told that same thing years ago when I first started advocating delta rpms. Could be something for private mirrors serving internal users more easily, and might even allow better control and rollout of updates.

Then I add --skip-broken, then some of packages got updated. AFAICS, there's no way we can fix the upgrade if we don't do what I suggested in comment 3 (and this one). package-cleanup --dupes? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Yay!