Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade"). [CLOSED]

On 4/12/21 11:12 AM, home user wrote: (context) In the "invisible application after upgrade" thread, Ed did not know how I did my upgrade to f33.  I responded that I mostly followed the Fedora upgrade instructions from here: "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/13/21 5:02 AM, Tim via users wrote: On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 14:37 +0930, Tim via users wrote: What doesn't change, though, are user settings. Any program that stores its settings in your homespace is unaffected by RPM updates. Your configurations carry over. However, some applications chang

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On 4/12/21 11:12 AM, home user wrote: (context) In the "invisible application after upgrade" thread, Ed did not know how I did my upgrade to f33.  I responded that I mostly followed the Fedora upgrade instructions from here: "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On 4/13/21 3:17 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 11:12 -0600, home user wrote: Isn't a dangling symlink a file system parallel to a dangling pointer in a C/C++ program? A dangling pointer always points at something and is a clear and present danger if it's ever dereferenced

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On 4/12/21 1:47 PM, Andras Simon wrote: 2021-04-12 19:12 UTC+02:00, home user : [... snip ...] What good, valid purpose is there for a package to have a dangling symlink? Or maybe "hunspell" needs a little clean-up? Probably no and yes. But it's not just hunspell. Far from it! I was assumin

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On 4/12/21 1:15 PM, George N. White III wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 14:13, home user > wrote: [... snip ...] (question 2) In a later post, Andras provided and example of a dangling symlink (in the "hunspell" package) that should not be deleted. When I w

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 08:14 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > What good, valid purpose is there for a > > > package to have a dangling symlink? > > > > I could imagine it being used as a kind of placeholder, but I > > woul

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > What good, valid purpose is there for a > > package to have a dangling symlink? > > I could imagine it being used as a kind of placeholder, but I wouldn't > call it elegant. Firefox, for example, uses a dangling symlink to

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 14:37 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > What doesn't change, though, are user settings. Any program that > stores its settings in your homespace is unaffected by RPM updates. > Your configurations carry over. However, some applications change > their configuration format over t

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 11:12 -0600, home user wrote: > Isn't a dangling symlink a file system parallel to a dangling > pointer in a C/C++ program?  A dangling pointer always points at something and is a clear and present danger if it's ever dereferenced. A dangling symlink doesn't point at anythin

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

2021-04-12 19:12 UTC+02:00, home user : > (context) > In the "invisible application after upgrade" thread, Ed did not know how > I did my upgrade to f33. I responded that I mostly followed the Fedora > upgrade instructions from here: > "https://docs.fedoraproject.o

Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 14:13, home user wrote: > (context) > [...] (question 2) > In a later post, Andras provided and example of a dangling symlink (in > the "hunspell" package) that should not be deleted. When I was a C/C++ > programmer (a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away), danglin

Re: invisible application after upgrade. [SOLVED]

On 4/8/21 1:51 PM, home user wrote: (f33; gnome) I just finished upgrading from f32 to f33. When I click the gnome "Activities", I no longer see "caja". When I use the gnome activities search thing, it does not find "caja".  But dnf shows it installed and up-to-date.  Before today's update, c

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/11/21 3:46 PM, Andras Simon wrote: 2021-04-11 23:02 UTC+02:00, home user : 2021-04-11 6:38 UTC+02:00, home user I don't fully understand. Of what use is a link to nowhere? Let me show you an example. $ rpm -qV hunspell $ symlinks /usr/share/doc/hunspell/ dangling: /usr/share/doc/hunsp

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/11/21 11:07 PM, Tim via users wrote: On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 20:46 +, home user wrote: Do you mean that all the other software is the same as the newest? If I do a weekly patch (dnf upgrade), and that patch includes patches to vim or firefox, and then the next day I boot into one of the o

dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").

(context) In the "invisible application after upgrade" thread, Ed did not know how I did my upgrade to f33.  I responded that I mostly followed the Fedora upgrade instructions from here: "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/";, and listed the

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 12/04/2021 12:59, Tim via users wrote: On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 05:03 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: It is most likely they want it this way. I have to wonder how they expected you to browse the file system if they hide the file browser. They expect you to use the file browser of the desktop you

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 20:46 +, home user wrote: > Do you mean that all the other software is the same as the newest? > If I do a weekly patch (dnf upgrade), and that patch includes patches > to vim or firefox, and then the next day I boot into one of the older > entries in the grub menu, I sho

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 05:03 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > It is most likely they want it this way. I have to wonder how they expected you to browse the file system if they hide the file browser. -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1160.21.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 18:28:22 UTC 2021 x86_64 Boilerp

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/11/21 3:03 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 12/04/2021 04:54, home user wrote: I wonder if it's supposed to be undisplayed and only in MATE, or was that a goof.  The original poster might try filing a bug report and see what the response is. Ed's suggestion to edit /usr/share/applications/caja.desk

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 20:46 +, home user wrote: > > It doesn't actually work like that.  Only the kernel is kept, not > > everything.  When you pick a different entry, you're only selecting > > a > > different kernel.  All the other software is the same. > > Do you mean that all the other so

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

2021-04-11 23:02 UTC+02:00, home user : >> 2021-04-11 6:38 UTC+02:00, home user > >> [...] >> >> >> This isn't necessarily a good idea, because those dangling symlinks >> may belong to their respective packages. If so, removing them will >> compromise the integrity of the package they belong to. >

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 12/04/2021 04:54, home user wrote: I wonder if it's supposed to be undisplayed and only in MATE, or was that a goof. The original poster might try filing a bug report and see what the response is. Ed's suggestion to edit /usr/share/applications/caja.desktop worked. Should I still file a bu

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> 2021-04-11 6:38 UTC+02:00, home user > [...] > > > This isn't necessarily a good idea, because those dangling symlinks > may belong to their respective packages. If so, removing them will > compromise the integrity of the package they belong to. I don't fully understand. Of what use is a li

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> I wonder if it's supposed to be undisplayed and only in MATE, or was > that a goof. The original poster might try filing a bug report and see > what the response is. Ed's suggestion to edit /usr/share/applications/caja.desktop worked. Should I still file a bug? ___

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> To make it not system-wide, copy the file to > ~/.local/share/applications/ and edit it there. I want this fix to be system-wide. But thank-you. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> The "other" way to fix it is to edit the file... > > /usr/share/applications/caja.desktop > > and comment out as shown > > #NoDisplay=true > #OnlyShowIn=MATE; > > Caveat:  This file is a "system-wide" file and may get overwritten on > updates.  > This file affects all users > The previous "m

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> But, I can tell you how to "fix" it. > > Install "menulibre".  This will allow you to add a "launcher".  It > will then be visible when you search > in the search bar in "Activities".  And you can add it to your > "Favorites" if you wish. I'm opting for the more general fix in your later post.

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

> It doesn't actually work like that. Only the kernel is kept, not > everything. When you pick a different entry, you're only selecting a > different kernel. All the other software is the same. Do you mean that all the other software is the same as the newest? If I do a weekly patch (dnf up

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

2021-04-11 6:38 UTC+02:00, home user : [...] > * symlinks -r -d /usr This isn't necessarily a good idea, because those dangling symlinks may belong to their respective packages. If so, removing them will compromise the integrity of the package they belong to.

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 2021-04-11 12:47 a.m., Ed Greshko wrote: The "other" way to fix it is to edit the file... /usr/share/applications/caja.desktop and comment out as shown #NoDisplay=true #OnlyShowIn=MATE; Caveat:  This file is a "system-wide" file and may get overwritten on updates.  This file affects all u

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 15:47 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > The "other" way to fix it is to edit the file... > > > > /usr/share/applications/caja.desktop > > > > and comment out as shown > > > > #NoDisplay=true > > #OnlyShowIn=MATE; > > > > Caveat: This file is a "system-wide" file and may

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 11/04/2021 13:36, Tim via users wrote: On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 13:51 -0600, home user wrote: When I click the gnome "Activities", I no longer see "caja". When I use the gnome activities search thing, it does not find "caja". But dnf shows it installed and up-to-date. My first guess would be t

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 11/04/2021 12:38, home user wrote: Those are all the clues and evidence I can think of at the moment. OK  I'm going to "dismiss" what you've said for the reason that I don't know why it was working for you in the first place.  I went back to installing F31 and the same results.  Not th

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 13:51 -0600, home user wrote: > When I click the gnome "Activities", I no longer see "caja". When I > use the gnome activities search thing, it does not find "caja". But > dnf shows it installed and up-to-date. My first guess would be to locate caja.desktop file(s), and chec

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/10/21 9:38 PM, home user wrote: Since the upgrade (and patching) keeps the most recent 2 patches, I tried to boot up in each of those last 2 (f32), log in, and check for caja.  The application has become "invisible" to gnome in those patches also. It doesn't actually work like that. Onl

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/10/21 9:38 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 11/04/2021 10:56, Joe Zeff wrote: On 4/10/21 7:05 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: Of course it was installed from updates. Why should that matter? Because I don't know the habits of the OP in installing updates. So, not being in the habit of making assumpti

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 11/04/2021 10:56, Joe Zeff wrote: On 4/10/21 7:05 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: Of course it was installed from updates. Why should that matter? Because I don't know the habits of the OP in installing updates. So, not being in the habit of making assumptions and my not knowing how the Activitie

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 4/10/21 7:05 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: Of course it was installed from updates. Why should that matter? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: invisible application after upgrade.

On 09/04/2021 03:51, home user wrote: I just finished upgrading from f32 to f33. When I click the gnome "Activities", I no longer see "caja". When I use the gnome activities search thing, it does not find "caja". But dnf shows it installed and up-to-date.  Before today's update, caja was easi

invisible application after upgrade.

(f33; gnome) I just finished upgrading from f32 to f33. When I click the gnome "Activities", I no longer see "caja". When I use the gnome activities search thing, it does not find "caja".  But dnf shows it installed and up-to-date.  Before today's update, caja was easily available through the