Although when querying for possible package updates with the sudo dnf upgrade --refresh command, Google Chrome and Vivaldi are also included among the repositories, but they cannot be updated on the command line, only with the Software Manager program. What is the reason for this and how can these browser packages be updated in the terminal?
I have to assume you are using Workstation.
That statement is certainly not true for chrome though I don’t know about vivaldi.
As long as you have the google chrome repo enabled then dnf will easily update google chrome for you. The package name is google-chrome-stable.
# dnf history google-chrome-stable
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
317 | upgrade | 2024-08-09 09:45 | C, E, I, U | 143 E<
309 | update | 2024-07-30 19:26 | Upgrade | 30 ><
303 | reinstall google-chrome-stable-127.0.6533.72-1.x86_64 | 2024-07-28 20:29 | R | 2 ><
75 | install google-chrome-stable -y | 2024-07-28 19:35 | Install | 2 >
[```Maybe, even though you have the RPM repositories in place, you installed the Flatpak version?
I did not think of that possible cause.
If so then the flatpak command can be used on the cli to do the updates.
No transaction was found that modifies the package “google-chrome-stable”
sudo dnf history google-chrome-unstable
17 | upgrade --refresh | 2024. 08. 10. 23 | I, U | 58 E<
5 | install google-chrome-unstable | 2024. 08. 06. 07 | Install | 2 >
Nevertheless, the google-chrome-unstable package was not updated with dnf yesterday, I only saw in the software manager that there is a newer version than the installed one.
sudo dnf upgrade --refresh
Fedora 40 - x86_64 220 kB/s | 29 kB 00:00
Fedora 40 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 13 kB/s | 989 B 00:00
Fedora 40 - x86_64 - Updates 153 kB/s | 27 kB 00:00
Fedora 40 - x86_64 - Updates 2.9 MB/s | 3.6 MB 00:01
google-chrome 14 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00
google-chrome-unstable 15 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Driver 16 kB/s | 7.8 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - Steam 89 kB/s | 7.4 kB 00:00
vivaldi-snapshot
Running the unstable version of google chrome and having that repo enabled may not be the best idea. I would remove the unstable version and install the stable version in its place.
This inconsistency is common. Packagekit and dnf use different metadata caches and update on different schedules so what you see in one may not be the same as in the other. The command dnf upgrade --refresh is guaranteed to always get the latest info since it refreshes the metadata cache when the command is run. The gnome software tool is not guaranteed the same consistency nor freshness of data.
1 Like
In any case, it was strange that after issuing the command sudo dnf upgrade --refresh, I didn’t see the latest Google Chrome version, but after that, Google Chrome was already appearing among updates in the software manager.
Then it’s fine, but since I “grew up” on Debian, I still want to install the updates from the command line.
Simple enough
Simply ignore what gnome software says and only use dnf on the cli. The differences in what they claim are insignificant since they work differently and the info is out of sync most times. Dnf is preferred by many, myself included.
I also like dnf, it works at least as well as apt.
Is it natural that kernel updates appear in software manager, not after issuing dnf upgrade --refresh?
If you look at the gnome software before using dnf and a package update does not show then it seems it also should not show after using dnf.
This may be a result of the packagekit updating its metadata just before or during the time while dnf is running, or it may be that you did not check it before using dnf and the update already showed there but was not seen. Using dnf does not update the packagekit metadata.
To avoid this type confusion I totally ignore even looking at the packagekit information because of the sync issue for metadata.
This question seems a lack of understanding of what has been said before.
Dnf and packagekit update metadata independently and on a different schedule. If the user expects them to remain in sync they will be sadly confused when inconsistencies occur, as you appear to have seen.
If you use dnf then ignore the gnome software (packagekit) information and understand that it is likely out of sync.
I understand this, I also prefer the command line, but what if important updates will not appear regularly for several days with dnf? My experiences so far seem to point in this direction.
Not sure I understand the issue. I’ve been able to upgrade them, with the exception of chrome which I don’t use. They’re being updated using dnf several times a week.
$ LANG=C dnf list installed "*vivaldi*"
Installed Packages
vivaldi-stable.x86_64 6.8.3381.46-1 @vivaldi
$ LANG=C dnf list installed "*brave*"
Installed Packages
brave-browser.x86_64 1.67.123-1 @brave-browser
brave-keyring.noarch 1.15-1 @brave-browser
$ LANG=C dnf history vivaldi-stable
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
545 | upgrade | 2024-06-25 14:26 | Upgrade | 2 <
538 | upgrade | 2024-06-20 11:17 | Upgrade | 1 ><
526 | upgrade | 2024-06-12 08:19 | Upgrade | 54 ><
511 | upgrade | 2024-05-31 07:54 | I, U | 22 ><
497 | upgrade | 2024-05-23 21:11 | Upgrade | 1 ><
482 | upgrade | 2024-05-15 10:32 | Upgrade | 1 ><
480 | upgrade | 2024-05-14 11:01 | I, U | 54 ><
476 | upgrade | 2024-05-11 14:07 | Upgrade | 1 ><
469 | upgrade | 2024-05-08 11:55 | Upgrade | 3 ><
462 | upgrade | 2024-05-02 19:11 | Upgrade | 3 ><
456 | upgrade | 2024-04-29 15:13 | Upgrade | 1 ><
443 | upgrade | 2024-04-26 06:01 | Upgrade | 1 ><
418 | upgrade | 2024-04-13 07:32 | I, U | 10 ><
408 | upgrade | 2024-04-05 06:28 | Upgrade | 1 ><
393 | upgrade | 2024-03-28 12:11 | Upgrade | 5 ><
386 | upgrade | 2024-03-21 09:39 | Upgrade | 9 ><
379 | upgrade | 2024-03-14 10:10 | Upgrade | 22 ><
371 | upgrade | 2024-03-07 09:37 | Upgrade | 5 ><
363 | upgrade | 2024-02-29 19:45 | Upgrade | 1 ><
347 | reinstall Paquets Box2D.x86_64 ImageMagick.x86_64 ImageMagick-libs.x86_64 LibRaw.x86_64 ModemManager.x86_ | 2024-02-17 22:22 | R | 6196 ><
337 | upgrade | 2024-02-14 14:44 | Upgrade | 1 ><
296 | upgrade | 2024-02-07 14:56 | Upgrade | 1 ><
286 | upgrade | 2024-01-31 15:52 | Upgrade | 1 ><
284 | update | 2024-01-29 15:48 | Upgrade | 1 ><
114 | downgrade vivaldi | 2023-10-28 09:26 | Downgrade | 1 ><
100 | upgrade | 2023-10-26 05:29 | Upgrade | 1 ><
36 | install vivaldi-stable | 2023-10-18 20:34 | Install | 1 >
$ LANG=C sudo dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:45 ago on Thu Aug 15 13:10:47 2024.
Dependencies resolved.
================================================================================================================================================================
Package Architecture Version Repository Size
================================================================================================================================================================
Upgrading:
brave-browser x86_64 1.68.141-1 brave-browser 115 M
chromium x86_64 127.0.6533.99-1.fc40 updates 87 M
chromium-common x86_64 127.0.6533.99-1.fc40 updates 14 M
vivaldi-stable x86_64 6.8.3381.53-1 vivaldi 104 M
Installing dependencies:
google-crc32c x86_64 1.1.2-9.fc40 fedora 22 k
libXNVCtrl x86_64 535.113.01-4.fc40 fedora 24 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================================================================================================
Install 2 Packages
Upgrade 4 Packages
Total download size: 321 M
Is this ok [Y/n]: n
Operation aborted.
I stopped upgrading chromium related browser near the end of june because manifest v3 issues, but that’s a completely different story.
Not true. They both use the same repo for packages and what one sees is available for the other as well. The only real difference in what is seen is the timing differences on updating the metadata.
With dnf you can use the --refresh option to get the latest up to date info when using dnf. With packagekit it is not that simple.
The biggest real difference is that dnf does not update flatpaks. You must use the flatpak command on the cli for those packages.
We’ll see. I will continue to test the frequency of package updates with dnf.
Well, we have the solution. I installed Chrome not from the command line, but with the software manager, so it was not updated with dnf. I thought that, like the Debian Synaptic apt connection, there is a close transition between the software manager and dnf on Fedora, which I install with one and can update with the other, but this is not the case on Fedora Linux.
Did you install the rpm version or the flatpak one?
For the records, Synaptic is a frontend to apt, while GNOME Software, as stated before, is not a frontend to dnf (it makes use of packagekit).
I don’t use Flatpak, only the rpm version.I don’t use Flatpak, only the rpm version. By the way, I can see that yumex is already outdated, dnfdragora has replaced it, which is not as good as yumex was.