It's now in Rpmfusion updates-testing. Might take a while to get to stable.
https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/42/
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedo
I fixed it by installing the signed Rpmfusion package from
https://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/packages/vlc-plugins-freeworld/3.0.21/5.fc42/data/signed/d651ff2e/
(it's not in Rpmfusion's updates or updates-testing yet). Alternatively, if
you remove the existing vlc-plugins-freeworld package, th
vlc-plugins-freeworld-3.0.21-4.fc42.x86_64
>
> Any ideas how to proceed?
The fix has been made and will turn up start of next week.
If you do not use vls you can uninstall it.
Or do this
sudo dnf update -x 'vlc*'
Barry
--
__
On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 11:25 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> Running transaction
> Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
> - file /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libfaad_plugin.so from install of
> vlc-plugins-base-1:3.0.21-24.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> vlc-plugins-freeworld-3.0
Running transaction
Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
- file /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libfaad_plugin.so from install of
vlc-plugins-base-1:3.0.21-24.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
vlc-plugins-freeworld-3.0.21-4.fc42.x86_64
Any ideas how to proceed?
Thanks,
Neal
--
_
Ranjan Maitra via users wrote:
> However, trying to eliminate all possibilities led me to
> the answer. And that is, it likely was the case that the
> tarball that was created and I was using had this outdated
> libssl.so.1.1 included inside it. So, I created a new
> tarball (with the code that was
ect: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> requests
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 8:44 PM Ranjan Maitra via users
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun Jun15'25 08:26:29PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > From: Jeffrey Walton
> > > Date: Sun
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 9:48 PM Ranjan Maitra via users
wrote:
>
> Thanks for this!
>
> On Sun Jun15'25 08:45:38PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > I see libPropList is listed as a BuildRequires. Is it
> > needed at build or install time? Typically, I'd expect the
> > BuildRequires to be m
Hi Todd,
Thanks for this!
On Sun Jun15'25 08:45:38PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> From: Todd Zullinger
> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:45:38 -0400
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
> Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from
; Reply-To: noloa...@gmail.com, Community support for Fedora users
> >
> > Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> > requests
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:15 PM Ranjan Maitra via users
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
Hi,
Ranjan Maitra via users wrote:
> I have a program called gbuffy which is very old, but used to compile fine in
> F41 (and even in F42).
>
> I am able to create a RPM but I have a strange problem in that while
> installing it, I get:
>
> $ sudo dnf install ../RPMS/
ubject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> requests
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:15 PM Ranjan Maitra via users
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun Jun15'25 09:30:27PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> > > From: Marco Moock
> > > Date: Sun, 15 Ju
users
> > Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> > requests
> >
> > Am 15.06.2025 um 14:25:06 Uhr schrieb Ranjan Maitra via users:
> >
> > > BUt I wonder where this different version comes in? Can I specify the
> > > up
On Sun Jun15'25 09:30:27PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> From: Marco Moock
> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:30:27 +0200
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
> Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> request
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 2:52 PM Ranjan Maitra via users
wrote:
>
> I have a program called gbuffy which is very old, but used to compile fine in
> F41 (and even in F42).
>
> I am able to create a RPM but I have a strange problem in that while
> installing it, I get:
>
installing it, I get:
>
> $ sudo dnf install ../RPMS/x86_64/gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
> Updating and loading repositories:
> Repositories loaded.
> Failed to resolve the transaction:
> Problem: conflicting requests
> - nothing provides libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) n
Am 15.06.2025 um 14:25:06 Uhr schrieb Ranjan Maitra via users:
> BUt I wonder where this different version comes in? Can I specify the
> updated ssl version through the spec file or something else?
Do more binaries exist that might be the issue?
--
Gruß
Marco
Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1749
On Sun Jun15'25 09:15:10PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> From: Marco Moock
> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:15:10 +0200
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
> Subject: Re: is there a way to disable dnf from ignoring conflicting
> request
Am 15.06.2025 um 13:51:35 Uhr schrieb Ranjan Maitra via users:
> $ sudo dnf install ../RPMS/x86_64/gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
> Updating and loading repositories:
> Repositories loaded.
> Failed to resolve the transaction:
> Problem: conflicting requests
>
Hi,
I have a program called gbuffy which is very old, but used to compile fine in
F41 (and even in F42).
I am able to create a RPM but I have a strange problem in that while installing
it, I get:
$ sudo dnf install ../RPMS/x86_64/gbuffy-0.2.8-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
Updating and loading
Stephen Morris wrote:
> If the systemd warnings are because livesys hasn't been
> updated, and with the specified file not being owned by
> any package, how do I upgrade livesys given that standard
> system version upgrades haven't refreshed it?
You can simply remove those initscripts (IIRC, there
*From:* Stephen Morris
*Sent:* Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 09:28 UTC+10
*To:* users@lists.fedoraproject.org
*Subject:* RE: DMESG Messages after Sudo DNF Upgrade
*From:* Roger Heflin
*Sent:* Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 09:11 UTC+10
*To:* Community support for Fedora users
*Cc
*From:* Roger Heflin
*Sent:* Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 09:11 UTC+10
*To:* Community support for Fedora users
*Cc:* francis.montag...@inria.fr
*Subject:* RE: DMESG Messages after Sudo DNF Upgrade
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 6:04 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
From:francis.montag...@inria.fr
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 6:04 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
>
> From: francis.montag...@inria.fr
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 00:54 UTC+10
>
> To: Community support for Fedora users
>
> Cc: steve.morris...@gmail.com
>
> Subject: RE: DMESG Messages after Sudo DNF U
*From:* francis.montag...@inria.fr
*Sent:* Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 00:54 UTC+10
*To:* Community support for Fedora users
*Cc:* steve.morris...@gmail.com
*Subject:* RE: DMESG Messages after Sudo DNF Upgrade
Hi
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:18:22 +1000 Stephen Morris wrote:
With the
.log - dnf.log.4 nor /var/log/dnf.rpm.log -
> dnf.rpm.log.4 have the log for the dnf process I just did),
dnf is currently dnf5, but dnf4 still exits. The logs of dnf are
in /var/log/dnf5.log* :-(
> but why did multiples of that message occur. The update did upgrade
> akmod-nvidia f
*From:* Stephen Morris
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2025 at 08:18 UTC+10
*To:* fedora
*Cc:* steve.morris...@gmail.com
*Subject:* DMESG Messages after Sudo DNF Upgrade
Hi,
With the systemd message below, are they known issues that are
already in hand, or do I need to raise a bug
tting "permission denied" (I was running the upgrade under
sudo and I don't have the exact message and /var/log/dnf.log - dnf.log.4
nor /var/log/dnf.rpm.log - dnf.rpm.log.4 have the log for the dnf
process I just did), but why did multiples of that message occur. The
update did upgra
Michael D. Setzer II:
> dnf install /usr/bin/clean-rpm-gpg-pubkey
Installed it.
> /usr/bin/clean-rpm-gpg-pubkey --dry-run
Did a test run, that should show you what it would do, but not actually
do it (that dry-run option)
> /usr/bin/clean-rpm-gpg-pubkey
Actually ran it.
> W
> On 28 May 2025, at 12:08, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>
> Don't know what encryption subkeys are??
They are a GPG concept. A key can have sub keys.
I'm guessing the message means that all the sub keys of all keys were checked.
Barry
--
___
user
On 28 May 2025 at 8:48, Barry wrote:
From: Barry
Subject:Re: Getting "gpg: WARNING: No valid encryption
subkey left over."
sometimes running dnf
Date sent: Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:14 +0100
To: mi...@guam.
> On 28 May 2025, at 05:55, Michael D. Setzer II via users
> wrote:
>
> How would one correct this warning??
What rpm was being installed when you got this errror?
Is it a Fedora rpm? Or from a third party?
Barry
--
___
users mailing list -- users
How would one correct this warning??
Thanks.
++
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)
mailto:mi...@guam.net
mailto:msetze...@gmail.com
mailto:msetze...@gmx.com
Guam - Where Am
> On 23 May 2025, at 11:42, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> As I understand Barry's answer, that's expected behaviour. Dnf5 doesn't
> use /var/cache/dnf.
That is correct. Until the transition from dnf4 to dnf5 completes there will to
apps using the dnf4 lib
On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 19:06 +, Bob Marčan via users wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:55:34 +0100
> "Barry" wrote:
>
> > > On 22 May 2025, at 13:24, Michael D. Setzer II via users
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Was just looking at /var/cache/
On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:55:34 +0100
"Barry" wrote:
> > On 22 May 2025, at 13:24, Michael D. Setzer II via users
> > wrote:
> >
> > Was just looking at /var/cache/dnf and /var/cache/libdnf5
>
> /var/cache/dnf is used by dnf4 and any tools that have not
> On 22 May 2025, at 13:24, Michael D. Setzer II via users
> wrote:
>
> Was just looking at /var/cache/dnf and /var/cache/libdnf5
/var/cache/dnf is used by dnf4 and any tools that have not ported to dnf5.
/var/cache/libdnf5 is used by dnf5 and any tools that use dnf5 as a bac
Was just looking at /var/cache/dnf and /var/cache/libdnf5
noticed /var/cache/dnf had a lot of older files and directories
/var/cache/lib/dnf5 had a lot less.
moved contents of dnf directory to backup, and ran dnf update to
see what it would create and nothing was created, but files updated
in
On 05/06/2025 12:45 PM, Roger Heflin wrote:
I am pretty sure I saw this as the command: "restorecon -r /" (from
ps) and that command from the command line takes a while to run.
I would expect it to run for quite some time. Reading the man page
tells me that this command runs in / and continue
I am pretty sure I saw one of the rpm installs doing a long running restorecon.
I am pretty sure I saw this as the command: "restorecon -r /" (from
ps) and that command from the command line takes a while to run.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 7:15 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-05-06 at
On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 08:07 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 6:15 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 17:23 +0100, Barry wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5 May 2025, at 10:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just tried that and system came back
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 6:15 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 17:23 +0100, Barry wrote:
> >
> > > On 5 May 2025, at 10:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > Just tried that and system came back immediately.
> >
> > See the man page. Without a path to check the command does
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 17:23 +0100, Barry wrote:
>
> > On 5 May 2025, at 10:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >
> > Just tried that and system came back immediately.
>
> See the man page. Without a path to check the command does nothing.
> I am not sure what is an appropriate command line to use.
>
> On 5 May 2025, at 10:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> Just tried that and system came back immediately.
See the man page. Without a path to check the command does nothing.
I am not sure what is an appropriate command line to use.
Any one else know?
Barry
--
___
week,
instead of logging into my graphical window, I switched to Term2,
logged
in as root and ran "dnf update".
I have done this a lot of times when I hung like this. Don't log into
graphical window and then have all the apps start and still should
do an
, I switched to Term2, logged
> in as root and ran "dnf update".
>
> I have done this a lot of times when I hung like this. Don't log into
> graphical window and then have all the apps start and still should do an
> update.
>
> So ~87 updates and a new kernel. B
Today, on attempting resuming after suspending my system before boarding
my plane. My system hung.
So I powered cycled, and since I have not done an update in over a week,
instead of logging into my graphical window, I switched to Term2, logged
in as root and ran "dnf update".
I
Get the following at the end of "dnf update" of f41
-
>>> Running trigger-install scriptlet: systemd-0:256.12-1.fc41.x86_64
>>> Finished trigger-install scriptlet: systemd-0:256.12-1.fc41.x86_64
>>> Scriptlet output:
>>> Failed to connect to us
> On 3 Apr 2025, at 22:33, Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> How do I find what it is talking about and how do I get them rectified?
It is a known issue with some rpms that should eventually be fixed.
The messages can be ignored.
Barry
--
___
users mailing
Hi, I did a DNF upgrade this morning, which was the first upgrade for
about a week, and got the following errors from post-install scripts DNF
runs. How do I find what it is talking about and how do I get them
rectified? >>> Running trigger-install scriptlet:
systemd-0:256.12-1.fc
I have multiple F41 installations system-upgraded from F40, upgraded from F39,
etc., and a few of F42 from F41. Now with DNF5 operational, is there any reason
in
F41+ for /var/cache/dnf/ to continue to exist? It has multiple files of
considerable size.
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is
On 13 Mar 2025 at 22:58, Dave Close wrote:
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject:Re: dnf downgrade dependencies
From: Dave Close
Date sent: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 22:58:42 -0700
Send reply to: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>On 3/13/25 10:20 PM, Dave Close wrote:
>> I've decided I'm unhappy with one of the changes made by the most
>> recent version of LibreOffice, 24.8, and I want to try going back to
>> the previous version, 24.2, which is part of the FC40 repository.
>> But I'm astounded by the result of the command
e command below. (Without
allowerasing the command won't do anything.)
dnf downgrade --allowerasing --enable-repo=fedora40,updates40 \
libreoffice-24.2.2.1-3.fc40.x86_64
...
Transaction Summary:
Installing:21 packages
Upgrading: 8 packages
Replacing:
ommand won't do anything.)
dnf downgrade --allowerasing --enable-repo=fedora40,updates40 \
libreoffice-24.2.2.1-3.fc40.x86_64
...
Transaction Summary:
Installing:21 packages
Upgrading: 8 packages
Replacing: 1169 packages
Removing: 13 pac
;> reason in
>> F41+ for /var/cache/dnf/ to continue to exist? It has multiple files of
>> considerable size.
> I would think you could get rid of them but until you get a more definitive
> answer, you can clean them out with:
> sudo dnf4 clean all
> That should clea
there any reason
in
F41+ for /var/cache/dnf/ to continue to exist? It has multiple files of
considerable size.
I would think you could get rid of them but until you get a more definitive
answer, you can clean them out with:
sudo dnf4 clean all
That should clean out all the old dnf4 cruft.
That
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:56 PM Felix Miata wrote:
> I have multiple F41 installations system-upgraded from F40, upgraded from
> F39,
> etc., and a few of F42 from F41. Now with DNF5 operational, is there any
> reason in
> F41+ for /var/cache/dnf/ to continue to exist? It has mu
Paolo Galtieri wrote:
> Folks,
> a long time ago I installed a number of i686 packages on my system. I now
> want to remove them. When I try to remove one particular package I get some
> unexpected behavior.
>
> I do
>
> dnf remove pixman.i686
>
Folks,
a long time ago I installed a number of i686 packages on my system. I
now want to remove them. When I try to remove one particular package I
get some unexpected behavior.
I do
dnf remove pixman.i686
and I get:
Package Arch Version Repository Size
On 12/2/25 08:39, Tim Evans wrote:
On 2/11/25 4:23 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
The java-17-openjdk package is deprecated and may no longer receive
updates. Since f42 install adoptium-temurin-java-repository and
install temurin-17-jre
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks#a
On 2/11/25 4:23 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
The java-17-openjdk package is deprecated and may no longer receive
updates. Since f42 install adoptium-temurin-java-repository and install
temurin-17-jre
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks#adoptium-
temurin-java-repository
I
Hi,
A "sudo dnf upgrade" produced the following messages twice at the
beginning of the update process and again with the trigger scripts.
These messages provide instructions for what to do in F42, but what is
the solution for F41, or isn't there?
Also, what is the dnf
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> I did a dnf upgrade this morning and received the following messages.
> Where do I look to determine what the errors are talking about?
`journalctl -f` will probably do the trick.
> >>> Running trigger-install
Hi,
I did a dnf upgrade this morning and received the following
messages. Where do I look to determine what the errors are talking about?
Running trigger-install scriptlet: systemd-0:256.11-1.fc41.x86_64
Finished trigger-install scriptlet: systemd-0:256.11-1.fc41.x86_64
Scriptlet output
ee it's not enabled, so you can ignore it.
> I've also done a dnf upgrade this morning which updated to a new
> kernel, but it did not make any attempt upgrade the two packages that
> failed yesterday.
And you have skip if unavailable enabled in various places, so it won't
ontents of all my repos. As a result of doing that
I've noticed that I have a fedora-rawhide.repo, which I am not aware of
having been created, and I have no need of packages from there.
I've also done a dnf upgrade this morning which updated to a new kernel,
but it did not make any attemp
On 9/1/25 09:38, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 4:44 PM Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi,
With this mornings update, when DNF tried to download
dnsmasq-0:2.90-4.fc41.x86_64 and firefox-0:134.0-1.fc41.x86_64, DNF got a 404
error from the mirror that looks to by my ISP's mirror
On Thu, 2025-01-09 at 09:20 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> so I changed the option to send the mail as html and text, which is
> the mail client will select which on to use.
> I didn't want to have to flip flop between sending options depending
> on where I was sending the mail to.
The reason you'
On Thu, 2025-01-09 at 09:20 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 9/1/25 09:11, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-01-09 at 08:43 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > > I'm resending this message with the information as attachments as
> > > embedding the messages in the mail caused the mail
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 4:44 PM Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> Hi,
> With this mornings update, when DNF tried to download
> dnsmasq-0:2.90-4.fc41.x86_64 and firefox-0:134.0-1.fc41.x86_64, DNF got a 404
> error from the mirror that looks to by my ISP's mirror, and after gett
On 9/1/25 09:11, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2025-01-09 at 08:43 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
I'm resending this message with the information as attachments as
embedding the messages in the mail caused the mail to be moderator held
because it was longer than 60KB.
It's still one e
On Thu, 2025-01-09 at 08:43 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> I'm resending this message with the information as attachments as
> embedding the messages in the mail caused the mail to be moderator held
> because it was longer than 60KB.
>
It's still one email message and it's the total size t
Hi,
With this mornings update, when DNF tried to download
dnsmasq-0:2.90-4.fc41.x86_64 and firefox-0:134.0-1.fc41.x86_64, DNF got
a 404 error from the mirror that looks to by my ISP's mirror, and after
getting that error it did not appear to try to download those packages
from any
On 18/12/24 09:22, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 5:09 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
On 17/12/24 12:46, Tim via users wrote:
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 09:37 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
Why does dnf show the download, install and cleanup timings starting
as negative values?
Is it a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 5:09 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
>
> On 17/12/24 12:46, Tim via users wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 09:37 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> Why does dnf show the download, install and cleanup timings starting
> as negative values?
>
> Is it a cou
On 17/12/24 12:46, Tim via users wrote:
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 09:37 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
Why does dnf show the download, install and cleanup timings starting
as negative values?
Is it a countdown to estimated time of completion?
I can see some logic in doing things that way. Although
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 09:37 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Why does dnf show the download, install and cleanup timings starting
> as negative values?
Is it a countdown to estimated time of completion?
I can see some logic in doing things that way. Although such things
are rarely corre
On 16/12/24 14:10, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 5:38 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
On 15/12/24 14:32, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 6:59 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
When I run "sudo dnf upgrade", as an example, and it displays the stats for the
downloads
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 5:38 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
>
> On 15/12/24 14:32, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 6:59 PM Stephen Morris
> wrote:
>
> When I run "sudo dnf upgrade", as an example, and it displays the stats for
> the downloads, i
On 15/12/24 14:32, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 6:59 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
When I run "sudo dnf upgrade", as an example, and it displays the stats for the
downloads, installs and Removes (cleanup), the elapsed time column shows the times
starting as ne
Tim:
> > Usually man pages are wrapped and "justified" so that each line of text
> > is the same length (just under the current width of the viewing
> > window). It does the justifying by adding extra spaces between some
> > words, and hyphenating others.
> >
> > Does that describe what you're se
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 6:59 PM Stephen Morris
wrote:
>
> When I run "sudo dnf upgrade", as an example, and it displays the stats for
> the downloads, installs and Removes (cleanup), the elapsed time column shows
> the times starting as negative and increasing to 0 an
When I run "sudo dnf upgrade", as an example, and it displays the stats
for the downloads, installs and Removes (cleanup), the elapsed time
column shows the times starting as negative and increasing to 0 and
above, and then when the process is finished it then displays the time
as th
On 14/12/24 11:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 7:22 PM Tim via users
wrote:
Greg:
This is by no means an issue.
The program you use to display the man page, let's assume man,
formats the man page source code, using the groff program in turn.
Part of the formatting is making i
On 14/12/24 11:21, Tim via users wrote:
Greg:
This is by no means an issue.
The program you use to display the man page, let's assume man,
formats the man page source code, using the groff program in turn.
Part of the formatting is making intervals between the words on a line
more or less equal
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 7:22 PM Tim via users
wrote:
>
> Greg:
> > > This is by no means an issue.
> > > The program you use to display the man page, let's assume man,
> > > formats the man page source code, using the groff program in turn.
> > > Part of the formatting is making intervals between
Greg:
> > This is by no means an issue.
> > The program you use to display the man page, let's assume man,
> > formats the man page source code, using the groff program in turn.
> > Part of the formatting is making intervals between the words on a line
> > more or less equal by adding/removing blan
On 14/12/24 05:44, greg wrote:
I have also encountered another issue, I've modified the man file to document
the extra option I have added, and when I display the man page,
for my changes there are place where it is displaying two blanks between words
where in the source there is only one, and
> I have also encountered another issue, I've modified the man file to document
> the extra option I have added, and when I display the man page,
> for my changes there are place where it is displaying two blanks between
> words where in the source there is only one, and I don't know why
> it is
> I have also encountered another issue, I've modified the man file to document
> the extra option I have added, and when I display the man page,
> for my changes there are place where it is displaying two blanks between
> words where in the source there is only one, and I don't know why it
> is
On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:28 PM Todd Zullinger wrote:
>
> Stephen Morris wrote:
> > Yes, but this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf download
> > symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download but as shown above "sudo dnf
> > install symlink
this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf
download symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download but as shown
above "sudo dnf install symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" won't do the
install.
Use rpm -i src-rpm to install the sources.
They will be in -/rpmbuild (I th
"sudo dnf
download symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download but as shown
above "sudo dnf install symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" won't do the
install.
Use rpm -i src-rpm to install the sources.
They will be in -/rpmbuild (I think).
Being open source the software is d
On 12/11/24 1:55 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 9/12/24 10:47, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 12/8/24 1:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/12/24 00:50, Barry wrote:
On 7 Dec 2024, at 01:54, Stephen Morris
wrote:
Yes, but this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf
download symlinks-1
On 9/12/24 10:47, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 12/8/24 1:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/12/24 00:50, Barry wrote:
On 7 Dec 2024, at 01:54, Stephen Morris
wrote:
Yes, but this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf
download symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download bu
On Dec 8, 2024, at 16:16, Stephen Morris wrote:
>
>
>> On 7/12/24 17:09, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 12/6/24 7:14 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 7/12/24 13:28, Samuel Sieb wrote:
There's nothing accumulating here. The lock file is checked at
application startup. If it's still valid
On Dec 8, 2024, at 16:39, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/12/24 09:34, Jonathan Billings
wrote:
On Dec 6, 2024, at 22:14, Stephen Morris wrote:
What determines that the lock file is valid? In the case of Thunderbird where it creates a lock file
On 12/8/24 1:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/12/24 00:50, Barry wrote:
On 7 Dec 2024, at 01:54, Stephen Morris wrote:
Yes, but this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf download
symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download but as shown above "sudo dnf install
On 8/12/24 00:50, Barry wrote:
On 7 Dec 2024, at 01:54, Stephen Morris wrote:
Yes, but this still highlights the final question as "sudo dnf download
symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" does the download but as shown above "sudo dnf install
symlinks-1.7-11.fc41.src" won't do
1 - 100 of 1580 matches
Mail list logo
