# Installing firefox want to uninstall KDE?



## jnoyb (Oct 21, 2017)

So I just installed 11.1 x64 a little while back.

Thought I might install firefox today...

guess what... pkg wants to uninstall KDE!

What the YT%3#!

I just don't get it. This is just ridiculous. It's unusable. It's a joke!

I'm so annoyed, that I created an account, just to express my annoyance!


```
uname -a
"FreeBSD b.sb9.local 11.1-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE-p1 #0: Wed Aug  9 11:55:48 UTC 2017     [email]root@amd64-builder.daemonology.net[/email]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64"
```


```
pkg --version
  1.10.1
```


```
pkg install firefox
"Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue...
Fetching meta.txz: 100%    944 B   0.9kB/s    00:01   
Fetching packagesite.txz: 100%    6 MiB 235.7kB/s    00:26   
Processing entries: 100%
FreeBSD repository update completed. 26966 packages processed.
All repositories are up to date.
The following 22 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked):

Installed packages to be [B]REMOVED[/B]:
        kopete-4.14.3_5
        [B]kde-4.14.3_1[/B]
        kdenetwork-4.14.3_1

New packages to be INSTALLED:
        firefox: 56.0.1,1
        startup-notification: 0.12_4
        gtk3: 3.22.15_1
        adwaita-icon-theme: 3.22.0
        at-spi2-atk: 2.24.0
        at-spi2-core: 2.24.0
        alsa-plugins: 1.1.1_1

Installed packages to be UPGRADED:
        icu: 58.2_2,1 -> 59.1,1
        raptor2: 2.0.15_5 -> 2.0.15_6
        libkolab: 0.6.3_5 -> 0.6.3_8
        xerces-c3: 3.1.4 -> 3.2.0_2
        libkolabxml: 1.1.6_3 -> 1.1.6_5
        akonadi: 1.13.0_3 -> 1.13.0_5
        kdepim: 4.14.10_7 -> 4.14.10_9
        boost-libs: 1.64.0 -> 1.65.1
        kdepim-runtime: 4.14.10_5 -> 4.14.10_7
        open-vm-tools: 10.1.5_1,2 -> 10.1.10_4,2
        libical: 2.0.0 -> 2.0.0_1

Installed packages to be REINSTALLED:
        apache-xml-security-c-1.7.3 (needed shared library changed)

Number of packages to be removed: 3
Number of packages to be installed: 7
Number of packages to be upgraded: 11
Number of packages to be reinstalled: 1

The process will require 265 MiB more space.
105 MiB to be downloaded.

Proceed with this action? [y/N]:
```


----------



## jnoyb (Oct 21, 2017)

ok..I finally managed to work it out...

pkg install firefox
...(not going to happen, as it wants to remove KDE!!!)


pkg upgrade
..Number of packages to be installed: 64
..Number of packages to be upgraded: 144
..Number of packages to be reinstalled: 7
..829 Mib to be downloaded...
..
...
....


pkg install firefox
...(oh no...now I have package conflicts)
..Number of packages to be removed: 2
..Number of packages to be installed: 64
..Number of packages to be upgraded: 143
..Number of packages to be reinstalled: 7
..
...
....

pkg install firefox
..Number of packages to be installed: 7
..
...
....

(whooohooo....I finally have a web browser)

took an hour, and almost 1GB download...but i got there....

what the #90h09k!

I just wanted a web browser!


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 21, 2017)

Welcome, new member!

Whilst you were working things out for yourself  I drew attention to this topic in the chat room ircs://chat.freenode.net/#kde-freebsd for KDE on FreeBSD. 

*The short story*, if I understand correctly: 

in a case such as the one in the opening post, it's OK to allow removal
– then simply reinstall. 

Also thought-provoking: 



> "pkg install kde; pkg delete kde" leaves you with a fully functioning kde



Apparently true. This morning I discovered that I have used KDE Plasma 5 from (bleeding edge) Area 51 *without* [FONT=Courier New]kde[/FONT] for … weeks, months? I have no idea how long 

*A longer story*: https://pastebin.com/pT7r1Yij 

lines 34 and 35, this morning's discovery of the absence of [FONT=Courier New]kde[/FONT]
line 255, proceeding with installation of x11/kde and associated ports from the Area 51 repo
line 389, installation of www/firefox without disruption to KDE.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 21, 2017)

jnoyb 
Please, FORMAT your post accordingly.


----------



## Minbari (Oct 21, 2017)

Also you can lock that package and the installer won't touch him.


----------



## getopt (Oct 21, 2017)

grahamperrin said:


> *A longer story*: https://pastebin.com/pT7r1Yij


You are running FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT. Which is NOT a supported FreeBSD version here on the forums.
https://www.freebsd.org/security/index.html#sup

Your problems based on FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT may be of interest for developers as long as these are related to the OS. But certainly they are of none interest at all for other users. It is a matter of fairness to others admitting running FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT as it mostly is a waste of lifetime reading those posts.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 21, 2017)

Sorry, I sometimes forget. Have it deleted, if you like. The gist of it (with the forewarning of it being long) was in the fourth bullet point, installation of Firefox _without disruption to KDE_.


----------



## ShelLuser (Oct 21, 2017)

jnoyb said:


> I just don't get it. This is just ridiculous. It's unusable. It's a joke!
> 
> I'm so annoyed, that I created an account, just to express my annoyance!


Well, these things usually happen because of bad package management, and that's often caused by the users themselves.

For example: have you ever combined ports (so; the software you install from /usr/ports using commands like `# make install clean`) with binary packages (software you install using `# pkg install`)? Because although that may work at first sight it's actually a recipe for disaster, and it could lead up to situations such as these.

Another more likely possibility is not keeping your system up to date. If you don't keep your system up to date (which is always a bad idea in this day and age) then you shouldn't be too surprised if a newer package suddenly conflicts with other already installed software. This isn't something exclusively happening on FreeBSD though, every Unix-like environment which uses a package manager will suffer from this. This could just as easily have happened on Linux.

The main cause is because all packages are maintained by separate individuals, and sometimes packages can rely on the same libraries. So if you then install a package which changes (or removes) a certain library which other packages also rely on then you're creating a cascading effect.

Glad to hear you managed to solve it though


----------



## jnoyb (Oct 23, 2017)

Minbari said:


> Also you can lock that package and the installer won't touch him.


oh man...pkg lock...never knew about it...now I can do things I could never do before ;-)


----------



## SirDice (Oct 23, 2017)

jnoyb said:


> now I can do things I could never do before


Like shooting oneself in the foot. Seriously though, don't think pkg-lock(8) will solve your problems. You're are just as likely to create a whole bunch of new ones.


----------



## jnoyb (Oct 24, 2017)

SirDice said:


> Like shooting oneself in the foot. Seriously though, don't think pkg-lock(8) will solve your problems. You're are just as likely to create a whole bunch of new ones.



Well..I guess it's better than shooting oneself in the head ..cause it turns out..that deleting the pkg database is not such a good idea after all ;-)
(especially if you don't have a backup..which I didn't).

pkg lock is less painful.

For a long time I've wanted to upgrade from postgresql95 to postgresql10, but pkg wanted to remove php71-pgsql, which i needed.

If I let pkg remove it, then when I tried to reinstall php71-pgsql, pkg wanted to remove postgresql10....what a trip...I gave up.

anyway pkg lock has saved the day...

..and it turns out php71-pgsql works just fine with postgresql10...so why the dependency on 95? I can't make sense of some things...

but your words of caution are wise.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 24, 2017)

jnoyb said:


> For a long time I've wanted to upgrade from postgresql95 to postgresql10, but pkg wanted to remove php71-pgsql, which i needed.


Set in /etc/make.conf:

```
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= pgsql=96 php=71
```
And build from ports. At the moment it looks like you can't set databases/postgresql10 as the default. But I'm sure that will be possible some time soon. Have a look at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk for more defaults you can change.

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk?revision=452512&view=markup


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 24, 2017)

/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/pgsql.mk was updated already:


```
VALID_PGSQL_VER= 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 10
```

EDIT:


> ..and it turns out php71-pgsql works just fine with postgresql10...so why the dependency on 95? I can't make sense of some things...



Packages are attached to the versions they were built against (due to obvious reasons), and they are built against the default OS version.

As SirDice said, if you want to deviate from defaults you might build from ports instead of use the pre-built packages.

Just be aware it is not a good idea to mix ports and (pre-built) packages.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 24, 2017)

Ah, the comments haven't been updated yet.

```
# Possible values: 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6
PGSQL_DEFAULT?=         9.5
```


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 24, 2017)

SirDice I saw that yesterday while looking for some info in order to update www/davical to work with pgsql:10.


----------

