Debian pinning instructions for Chromium #1
Comments
|
On removing the debian repos and rule, following an apt update and apt upgrade which did nothing apt policy against the same packages tested indicates the focal version is installed. Tentative conclusion - ultimately harmless? |
|
There doesn't appear to be any oddities with my revised bionic rules /etc/apt/preferences.d/bionic-chromium.pref /etc/apt/sources.list.d/bionic-chromium.list |
|
Hi, If we do want to keep the Debian pinning rules then the general pin priority should be made -10. It doesn't fix the apparent downgrade of packages issue noted, but it does prevent installation of some other packages that are present in Buster but not in Focal. |
|
A little more insight into the issue with the apparent package downgrade. It looks like immediately after adding Buster pinning rules and running apt-update, apt erroneously identifies installed packages with identical names and version strings in Buster and Focal as needing a downgrade to the Focal version - effectively the result is a re-install. |
|
Interestingly on Ubuntu 20.04 using the Buster pinning rules it does not exhibit the same behaviour. This is immediately after adding the rules and running sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade -s |
Thanks for sharing your notes. I tried setting the default Pin-Priority to -10 locally and was unable to install chromium because there are some dependencies that are only available in Buster: Perhaps this is why the priority is documented as 1 instead of -10 on https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chromium.html?
I noticed that apt seems to exhibit different behavior depending on the alphabetical order of the files in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ and /etc/sources.list.d/. When I use the names "debian-chromium.pref" and "debian-chromium.list", When I use the names "zz-debian-chromium.pref" and "zz-debian-chromium.list", I wonder if this is causing the different behavior between Ubuntu and Linux Mint? |
Thank-you - one mystery solved. The difference between Mint and Ubuntu appears to be that Ubuntu stores all it's default repos in /etc/apt/sources.list whilst in Mint they are in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/official-package-repositories.list, and i guess apt reads the extra sources in alphabetical order. Noted re the -10 preventing the installation of some dependencies. It's probably better to still have -10 as the default and specific rules for those chromium dependencies. |
|
The refined instructions look to work well. Without problems I could install (with --install-suggests) packages chromium, chromium-common, chromium-driver, chromium-l10n, chromium-lwn4chrome, chromium-sandbox, chromium-shell and chromium-ublock-origin from Buster. However something strange happens when trying to install chromium-tt-rss-notifier from Buster, it causes chromium to be uninstalled: Don't know what's going on there. Looking at remaining chromium* packages:
Point 1 and 2 have replacements from Buster (chromium, chromium-l10n and chromium-driver respectively) but point 3 have no replacement. IDK if that is an issue. Those packages on Bionic basically shipped a file /usr/lib/chromium-browser/libffmpeg.so for which I see no Buster alterantive. |
The chromium package declares that it breaks the chromium-tt-rss-notifier package, so I believe that's why it's getting removed: The 'Breaks' relationship was added in this commit: And here are the related bug reports: |
|
Ah that explains it. chromium-lwn4chrome is at 1.0-3 hence that went okay. |
|
That's how I did it: PPA or apt-pinning
https://launchpad.net/~ts.sch.gr/+archive/ubuntu/chromium-browser
Help with packages, mirrors: Results: |
|
Thank all for helping with getting to best steps to get a snap-free Chromium. Now that Linux Mint provides chromium itself, this section has been removed. |
@clefebvre . You said test test test. I mentioned on the forum that I noticed a unexpected outcome for the debian apt pinning. I've just fresh installed the beta, added the repos and rules and retested to double check it wasn't something weird I'd already done and got the same result.
The disconcerting result is a whole bunch of packages come up as downgrade candidates on at
apt upgrade- a quick check of a few of them indicate that the common factor is identical versions string in both the Ubuntu and Debian repositories. I let apt upgrade perform the action with no obvious ill effects and post downgrade the 'apt policy' output for the two packages I checked is identical.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: