Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 444855
No menu entry after fresh install
Last modified: 2008-05-02 10:43:32 EDT
Description of problem:
After a fresh install of firefox using yum, there is no menu entry for firefox
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Untested, but probably always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora 9 Preview x86_64 Live KDE
2. Update all packages
3. yum install firefox
No menu entry in Applications -> Entry
A menu entry for firefox in Applications -> Entry
The firefox menu entry exists after a reboot.
Perhaps a session logout/login would be enough to get the menu entry
Not sure this is a firefox package bug as I just get the same behaviour with
So, I don't know to which package report this "problem"
Hmm... trying kdebase then for now as a best guess since you're using the kde
live cd. obviously, firefox is installing the desktop file, and it's being used
by kde, just not on demand...
Kick back if you think this really is a firefox bug.
Sounds like the ages-old KDE bug (which is also in KDE 3 and has been there for
years) where new menu entries aren't always added to the menu right away.
Logging out and back in or rebooting altogether should "fix" it.
Not ages old exactly, it's always worked for me. :) (kde uses fam/gamin to
"watch" the filesystem to changes, and is supposed to update automatically)
I'll see if I can reproduce.
steps to reproduce:
1. confirm firefox is installed and in menus
2. yum remove firefox
3. confirm firefox is now gone from menus
4. yum install firefox
5. firefox isn't present in menus
Hrm, repeated this 3 times.
trial 1: firefox didn't appear
trial 2 & 3: firefox *did* appear
regardless, something isn't quite right here. I'd say time to file issue
upstream @ bugs.kde.org
> and is supposed to update automatically
It's supposed to and it usually does, but sometimes it just doesn't work.
"sometimes it just doesn't work.". Bug report? :)
Checked upstream and could not find a matching bug. Please file with
bugs.kde.org and update this report with bug info.
Isn't it the role of the packager than doing that?
This has been debated many times on the mailing list. Upstream will want to
talk to the actual reporter, not a middle-man.
That said, in this case, at least Rex can reproduce it, so we can file it
upstream if you really don't want to do it.
> Isn't it the role of the packager than doing that?
:) yes and no. I'm game to do it, since I can reproduce, but it may be awhile
till I get round-tuit.
(In reply to comment #10)
> This has been debated many times on the mailing list. Upstream will want to
> talk to the actual reporter, not a middle-man.
> That said, in this case, at least Rex can reproduce it, so we can file it
> upstream if you really don't want to do it.
I just ask a question!
I never say I didn't want to report it.
But I can't report it before tomorrow as I'm not on the machine where I have a
KDE bug report account.
In addition, upstream often say "Update to the latest version", which, of
course, isn't yet packaged.
4.0.3 is still the latest stable version. (They can't really expect you to have
4.0.4 which was tagged 3 hours ago and which won't be on their own download
site for about a week.)
I would have to be more precise, I am not talking just about this bug when I
say upstream, I anted to say in general.
Sorry for the confusion.
(In reply to comment #11)
> > Isn't it the role of the packager than doing that?
> :) yes and no.
I say « yes ! » ;-)
> I'm game to do it, since I can reproduce, but it may be awhile
> till I get round-tuit.
Sorry Rex, but because my english, I didn't understand what you mean.
If you fill the bug, could you please put me as CC?
If not, I'll fill it tomorrow (I'm GMT + or - 1, I don't remember ;-) ), so,
tell me if you want to be CCed
Closing in favor of the upstream report. Will continue to monitor it there.
Why closing this bug as it isn't fixed by upstream?
I monitor opened bugs, not closed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#upstream for more
explanation of what CLOSED/UPSTREAM means.
While we wait for an upstream answer, there's nothing we can do about this bug
(as we don't have the resources to fix every single bug ourselves, and we have
several more important ones to deal with), that's why it's closed. Once
upstream has a fix, there are 2 possibilities:
1. we consider this important enough and the fix uninvasive enough to backport
upstream's fix: we'll reopen the bug, apply the fix, and close the bug once we
have applied upstream's fix.
2. we decide that this can wait for the next upstream release which will get us
the patch automatically. In this case, we just leave the bug in CLOSED UPSTREAM