Fixing the “Pending Update of Firefox snap” Error in Ubuntu

https://itsfoss.com/pending-update-firefox-ubuntu/

Andrei Z. wrote:
> Fixing the “Pending Update of Firefox snap” Error in Ubuntu
>
> https://itsfoss.com/pending-update-firefox-ubuntu/
>
My solution was to dump the snap and use the ol' deb.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 7/22/22 12:06, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> My solution was to dump the snap and use the ol' deb.
>

Lol. Same!

stepore <stepore@be.here.now> writes:

> On 7/22/22 12:06, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> My solution was to dump the snap and use the ol' deb.
>>
>
> Lol. Same!

I wonder, does anyone know what Linus thinks of Snaps
if he thinks of them at all.

RayH

Ray Hughes wrote:
> I wonder, does anyone know what Linus thinks of Snaps
> if he thinks of them at all.

Ha. LT is unhappy w/ 'everything' (related to packaging) which of
course includes snaps. He's sorta source oriented. (last link)

At the risk of my getting beat up again for having an opinion and being
a 'narcist', my preferred packing is a .deb for the version of Ub repo/s
I use for my Mint everyday driver.

*BUT* I acknowledge that the .deb packaging is a major 'breach' of the
ideas of unifying packaging around 'one' type of package, and the
'expectation' that dev/s should 'have to' satisfy all of the 'myriad'
different packaging schemes is 'terrible'.

And, I think Snaps are one of the *worst* solutions. I think it would
be 'nice' if there were some kind of middle ground that made it simple
to be able to use such as a flatpak or appimage instead of having to go
'all the way back' to source, so that it would be easier than compiling
from source to 'derive' a 'fatter' package into a .deb or .rpm or whichever.

<Deb hx>
> The earliest packaging tool, written by Ian Murdock and called dpkg, created a package in a Debian-specific binary format, and could be used later to unpack and install the files in the package.

> At about this time some debate arose between members of the project -- some felt that the Debian-specific format created by dpkg-deb should be dropped in favor of the format produced by the ar program. After several revised file formats and correspondingly-revised packaging tools, the ar format was adopted

https://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/project-history/ch-detailed.en.html

https://thenewstack.io/canonicals-snap-great-good-bad-ugly/ Canonical’s
Snap: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

--
Mike Easter

On 22/07/2022 20:06, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Andrei Z. wrote:
>> Fixing the “Pending Update of Firefox snap” Error in Ubuntu
>>
>> https://itsfoss.com/pending-update-firefox-ubuntu/
>>
> My solution was to dump the snap and use the ol' deb.
>
I thought Mozilla have stopped creating .deb files. Debian still does it
but they would because it is their brand!!.

<http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/f/firefox/firefox_102.0.1-3_amd64.deb>

<https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/102.0.1/linux-x86_64/en-GB/firefox-102.0.1.tar.bz2>

Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> writes:

> Ray Hughes wrote:
>> I wonder, does anyone know what Linus thinks of Snaps
>> if he thinks of them at all.
>
> Ha. LT is unhappy w/ 'everything' (related to packaging) which of
> course includes snaps. He's sorta source oriented. (last link)
>
> At the risk of my getting beat up again for having an opinion and
> being a 'narcist', my preferred packing is a .deb for the version of
> Ub repo/s I use for my Mint everyday driver.
>
> *BUT* I acknowledge that the .deb packaging is a major 'breach' of the
> ideas of unifying packaging around 'one' type of package, and the
> 'expectation' that dev/s should 'have to' satisfy all of the 'myriad'
> different packaging schemes is 'terrible'.
>
> And, I think Snaps are one of the *worst* solutions. I think it would
> be 'nice' if there were some kind of middle ground that made it simple
> to be able to use such as a flatpak or appimage instead of having to
> go 'all the way back' to source, so that it would be easier than
> compiling from source to 'derive' a 'fatter' package into a .deb or
> .rpm or whichever.
>
> <Deb hx>
>> The earliest packaging tool, written by Ian Murdock and called
>> dpkg, created a package in a Debian-specific binary format, and
>> could be used later to unpack and install the files in the package.
>
>> At about this time some debate arose between members of the project -- some felt that the Debian-specific format created by dpkg-deb should be dropped in favor of the format produced by the ar program. After several revised file formats and correspondingly-revised packaging tools, the ar format was adopted
>
> https://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/project-history/ch-detailed.en.html
>
> https://thenewstack.io/canonicals-snap-great-good-bad-ugly/
> Canonical’s Snap: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

+1 Mike

DebS oh how I misas them. :(

I wish Canonsensical would create Snapbuntu and leave
Ubuntu LTS alone.

Its not the space so much that bothers me its the speed
of the bloody things. I have the latest Dell XPS now and
generally snaps and DEBs just run about the same but Even on my XPS 2019
Snap apps are like swimming through treacle.

I guess its going to be a long ugly winter.

Shame because I love Buntus except these flaming snapcraps.

RayH