Yes, the Software manager is buggy. We recommend using dnf to upgrade.
sudo dnf upgrade
I notice two pieces of information on the About window:
The second message is different on my test F44 Workstation VM. There it reads: fedora 1.0, which makes me wonder if you have also installed Firefox from another source, maybe Mozilla’s own RPM repo? That would make sense of the first message, and possibly of GNOME Software’s behavior.
Can you share the output of the dnf list firefox --refresh --showduplicates command?
here is the output:
Updating and loading repositories:
vivaldi 100% | 3.5 KiB/s | 3.0 KiB | 00m01s
Fedora 44 - x86_64 - Updates 100% | 609.0 B/s | 5.4 KiB | 00m09s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Nonfree - U 100% | 1.6 KiB/s | 14.3 KiB | 00m09s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Nonfree - S 100% | 1.9 KiB/s | 14.6 KiB | 00m08s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Nonfree - N 100% | 2.3 KiB/s | 14.8 KiB | 00m06s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Nonfree 100% | 3.0 KiB/s | 16.0 KiB | 00m05s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Free - Upda 100% | 2.7 KiB/s | 11.2 KiB | 00m04s
RPM Fusion for Fedora 44 - Free 100% | 4.2 KiB/s | 12.1 KiB | 00m03s
mozilla - Created by dnf5 config-manag 100% | 1.6 KiB/s | 1.4 KiB | 00m01s
google-chrome 100% | 1.5 KiB/s | 1.3 KiB | 00m01s
Fedora 44 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_ 100% | 602.0 B/s | 986.0 B | 00m02s
Fedora 44 - x86_64 100% | 6.1 KiB/s | 7.9 KiB | 00m01s
Copr repo for PyCharm owned by phracek 100% | 2.6 KiB/s | 2.1 KiB | 00m01s
Brave Browser - Beta 100% | 2.7 KiB/s | 2.0 KiB | 00m01s
Brave Browser 100% | 2.8 KiB/s | 2.0 KiB | 00m01s
Repositories loaded.
Installed packages (available for reinstall, available for upgrade)
firefox.x86_64 150.0.3-1 mozilla
Available packages (available for reinstall, available for upgrade)
firefox.aarch64 150.0-1 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0-1 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0-1.fc44 fedora
firefox.aarch64 150.0.1-1 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0.1-1 mozilla
firefox.aarch64 150.0.2-2 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0.2-2 mozilla
firefox.aarch64 150.0.3-1 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0.3-1 mozilla
firefox.x86_64 150.0.3-1.fc44 updates
It is recommended that terminal outputs are posted as preformatted text, so that others can find it by searching after keywords.
OK, so the assumption was correct, you have installed Firefox from Mozilla’s own repos, probably following their guide. That’s usually an important information to provide when troubleshooting.
It is still not clear why GNOME Software can’t handle the mozilla repo correctly. Is the issue still reproducing even after you hit the refresh button?
edited the screenshot. replaced it with pre-formatted text
~
yes even by clicking the refresh the issue is still reproduced.
I tried to reproduce your issue on an F44 Workstation VM (aarch64), by following the instructions from Mozilla’s website, but dnf just won’t swap Fedora’s version with Mozilla’s version of Firefox. It did work though by uninstalling Firefox and then installing it again.
After that I could reproduce your issue.
One thing I’ve noticed is that in GNOME Software the mozilla repo is not visible in Firefox’s list of available sources. It’s as if GNOME Software (or PackageKit) sees Firefox needing an update, then PackageKit passing the upgrade request to dnf, which then returns “Nothing to do” (taken from the journal).
At this point I would suggest to file a bug against GNOME Software.
The gnome-software in f44 uses the dnf5 plugin, not PackageKit. Whatever dnf5daemon-server returns as packages for updates is shown in the gnome-software. A bug in Red Hat bugzilla will be better.
I just checked and the firefox package is returned from the dnf5daemon-server list of packages for scope=upgrades for some reason. Unfortunately the dnf5daemon-client does not implement this query, or I do not see what the arguments for it would be.
Right, but in this particular case Firefox shouldn’t be proposed for upgrade, being on the latest version already. Doesn’t this mean the issue is in dnf5daemon-server rather than dnf5daemon-client?
I meant the dnf5daemon-client as an easy way to reproduce the problem out of the gnome-software. The problem is in the dnf5daemon-server, which I mentioned in the pre-previous comment.