Abrowser on Debian, again
Hi,
I run this nice script https://trisquel.info/files/abrowser-on-debian.txt on a Debian 11.7 machine, writing *aramo* where it says *nabia*, but I get some errors:
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
abrowser : Depends: libc6 (>= 2.35) but 2.31-13+deb11u6 is to be installed
Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 12) but 10.2.1-6 is to be installed
Depends: libx11-xcb1 (>= 2:1.7.5) but 2:1.7.2-1 is to be installed
Recommends: xul-ext-youtube-html5-video-player but it is not installable
Recommends: libdbusmenu-glib4 but it is not going to be installed
Recommends: libdbusmenu-gtk3-4 but it is not going to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
What shall I do to have Abrowser on Debian?
Thank you very much!
I'm thinking you want to use the "nabia" version of that script if possible. The Trisquel Aramo repo is expecting newer versions of libraries from Ubuntu than what Debian 11 will have. After Debian 12 is released, then the Aramo version will probably work.
At least that's what I'm thinking.
There is a newer version of trisquel-keyring than the one the script downloads: try to substitute 2018.02.19 (both occurrences) for 2023.02.07.
Thank you! I did the two suggested changes (used nabia and trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb) and it worked! Abrowser is running on Debian.
Everything seems ok, however, when installing it, I got this:
dpkg-deb: error: archive 'trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb' uses unknown compression for member 'control.tar.zst', giving up
dpkg: error processing archive trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb (--install):
dpkg-deb --control subprocess returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb
You need zstd (hence the eponymous package) to (un)compress .zst files.
Do this:
sudo apt install zstd
Then try to install that key again.
zstd support for .deb archives in dpkg is announced for Debian 12:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1407587/accepted-dpkg-12118-source-into-unstable
Yes, so the "proper" way to do it would likely be to grab the source of the trisquel-keyring package and run dpkg-deb on Debian so that the .deb is re-generated using compression that this version of dpkg supports. This shows it's not always directly straightforward to move packages from one distro to another.
After moving all of my machines to Trisquel 11 I updated my linux-libre build scripts to run dpkg-deb -Zxz just so as to continue to use xz compression instead of zstd so as to remain compatible with people that have older versions of the package manager. And besides: The switch to zstd was made only because zstd decompresses faster. xz still offers better compression ratios.
> The switch to zstd was made only because zstd decompresses faster. xz still offers better compression ratios.
True. Apparently, we live in a time where sparing bandwidth and storage space is second priority to decompression speed. More bloat, faster.
We appreciate your sustained commitment to backwards-compatibility, including but not limited to 32-bit systems.
Apparently, we live in a time where sparing bandwidth and storage space is second priority to decompression speed.
What is often minimized in the scientific literature on networking is the energy to transmit the data (here XZ wins) and to (un)compress it (here ZSTD wins). Overall, I would not be surprised ZSTD wins.
I've read Brotli is better than both Zstd and Xz.
I am now on a different Debian 11.7 machine.
I installed zstd. I run here the script using nabia and trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb but it didn't install Abrowser, it complained about keys.
Then I run the script as it is at https://trisquel.info/files/abrowser-on-debian.txt -that is, using nabia and trisquel-keyring_2018.02.19_all.deb- and it worked! It installed Abrowser!
I don't understand, does it need both the old a new keyrings?
I'm thinking that nabia probably needs the older keyring, but maybe Magic Banana will clarify it for us.
Not really. On Trisquel 11, I only have version 2023.02.07 of trisquel-keyring installed. Nevertheless https://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel/dists/nabia-updates/Contents-amd64.gz specifically mentions version 2018.02.19 (whereas https://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel/dists/aramo-updates/Contents-amd64.gz does not):
$ wget -qO - https://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel/dists/nabia-updates/Contents-amd64.gz | zgrep trisquel-keyring
etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/trisquel-archive-keyring.gpg misc/trisquel-keyring
usr/share/doc/trisquel-keyring/changelog.gz misc/trisquel-keyring,misc/trisquel-keyring|2018.02.19
usr/share/doc/trisquel-keyring/copyright misc/trisquel-keyring,misc/trisquel-keyring|2018.02.19
usr/share/keyrings/trisquel-archive-keyring.gpg misc/trisquel-keyring,misc/trisquel-keyring|2018.02.19
Nevertheless, the latest version should be used for Nabia nowadays. It is in its packages at least:
$ wget -qO - https://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel/dists/nabia-updates/main/binary-amd64/Packages.bz2 | bzgrep 'trisquel-keyring_2023\.02\.07_all\.deb'
Filename: pool/main/t/trisquel-keyring/trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb
The .deb package for the new keyring needs zstd, which the version of dpkg you are currently using does not support, as mentioned in the link I posted above.
That said, the distribution you are using has now given up on providing free software only, so this may be a good time to consider discarding it. Furthermore, it appears that it is lagging behind on .deb compression improvements like zstd in its own stable dpkg version.
You would get the latest version of Abrowser, on top of a 100% free system, simply by switching to Trisquel 11. Also, no need to wait longer for zstd support in dpkg.
Yes, this is what I have.
amuza@debian:~$ sudo apt policy zstd
zstd:
Installed: 1.4.8+dfsg-2.1
Candidate: 1.4.8+dfsg-2.1
Version table:
*** 1.4.8+dfsg-2.1 500
500 tor://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.4.4+dfsg-3ubuntu0.1 -1
-1 http://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel nabia-updates/main amd64 Packages
-1 http://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel nabia-updates/main amd64 Packages
amuza@debian:~$ sudo apt policy trisquel-keyring
trisquel-keyring:
Installed: 2018.02.19
Candidate: 2023.02.07
Version table:
2023.02.07 500
-1 http://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel nabia-updates/main amd64 Packages
*** 2018.02.19 500
-1 http://archive.trisquel.info/trisquel nabia-updates/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
amuza@debian:~$ sudo apt upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
-REDACTED-
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be upgraded:
trisquel-keyring
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/5.832 B of archives.
After this operation, 5.120 B of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
dpkg-deb: error: archive '/var/cache/apt/archives/trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb' uses unknown compression for member 'control.tar.zst', giving up
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb (--unpack):
dpkg-deb --control subprocess returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/trisquel-keyring_2023.02.07_all.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
But that's not a problem for me now, Abrowser works, at least for now.
Regarding why using Debian. I moved some computers to Debian because I had to use some updated programs. But I guess with all this pinning priority thing [0] I might try to come back to safe Trisquel and run those applications from the Debian repos.
I am a member!
What is the license of this script?
Also, apt is for interactive use only. apt-get is for scripts.
https://www.howtogeek.com/791055/apt-vs.-apt-get-whats-the-difference-on-linux/