On 6/7/25 21:13, George N. White III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM mailto:fed...@eyal.emu.id.au>> wrote:
Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
"VM System" is too vague: which VM?
QEMU/KVM.
Both the h
On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM wrote:
> Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
> As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
>
"VM System" is too vague: which VM?
>
> However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
> >>> Running post-t
On Sun, 2025-07-06 at 08:49 +0100, Barry wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jul 2025, at 02:07, fed...@eyal.emu.id.au wrote:
> >
> > However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
> >>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
> > kernel-core-0:6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
> > after which the syst
> On 6 Jul 2025, at 02:07, fed...@eyal.emu.id.au wrote:
>
> However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
>>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
> kernel-core-0:6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
> after which the system was hard locked (about 45m...).
No one else has reported
Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
kernel-core-0:6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
after which the system was ha
Op Tue, 02 Jan 2024 17:36:51 +0100 schreef Ralf Corsépius
:
Am 29.12.23 um 15:40 schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsépius said:
IMNSHO, it's time to demand FESCO to take consequences against these
persons.
On what basis?
Respect and reason?
The way the guys, who are conduc
Am 29.12.23 um 21:54 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
On 12/29/23 07:02, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
It seems like (to me) lack of communication or coordination between
Fedora and RPMFusion is one of the root causes of the breaks.
I should have checked before making a comment like that. I don't know
about
Am 29.12.23 um 15:40 schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsépius said:
IMNSHO, it's time to demand FESCO to take consequences against these
persons.
On what basis?
Respect and reason?
The way the guys, who are conducting the rebaser of ffmpeg on Cisco are
behaving rude, disrespe
RPMFusion has now pushed the packages to stable, for example see
https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/39/x86_64/g/ .
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject
On 12/29/23 07:02, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 4:02 AM Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
How can I solve this problem?
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-fr
On 12/29/23 05:12, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Dec 29, 2023, at 04:16, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
Some overzealous RHAT employees are pushing incompatible and apparently
insufficently changes into released Fedoras.
IMNSHO, it's time to demand FESCO to take consequences against these persons.
I
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 4:02 AM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
> > How can I solve this problem?
> >
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
> > gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.8-2.fc39.x86_64
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsépius said:
> IMNSHO, it's time to demand FESCO to take consequences against these
> persons.
On what basis?
Not everybody uses RPMFusion, and there's absolutely nothing in the
Fedora guidelines about RPMFusion. Someone opened a BZ that said "hey,
looks like these thi
On Dec 29, 2023, at 04:16, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
>
> Some overzealous RHAT employees are pushing incompatible and apparently
> insufficently changes into released Fedoras.
>
> IMNSHO, it's time to demand FESCO to take consequences against these persons.
I have a hard time believing this was d
See https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d9bca05694 . The
problem is that the gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld and
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly from RPMFusion haven't yet been updated to be
compatible, though they have been built and signed and are waiting to be pushed
stable. If you
On 12/29/23 01:33, Frank Elsner wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 01:02:20 -0800 Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
How can I solve this problem?
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-fre
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 01:02:20 -0800 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
> > How can I solve this problem?
> >
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
> > gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.8-2.fc39.x86_64
Am 29.12.23 um 10:02 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
How can I solve this problem?
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.8-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file
from pa
On 12/29/23 00:52, Frank Elsner via users wrote:
How can I solve this problem?
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.8-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1:1.22.7-1.fc39
Hello,
How can I solve this problem?
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstasf.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.8-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1:1.22.7-1.fc39.x86_64
This is not the only file involved
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 10:18 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> I had added a 3rd party repository a long time
>
> ago (UnitedRPM)...I have long since forgotten the reason
Next time you add an extra repo, it might be worth leaving yourself a
note about why.
The only files in my root user's home dire
On 2019-02-25 10:01 a.m., Jakub Jelen wrote:
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 09:33 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed
with this error:
[SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already
downloaded
Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is
On 2019-02-25 9:59 a.m., Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2/25/19 10:33 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed
with this error:
[SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded
Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Pack
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 09:33 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed
>
> with this error:
>
>
> [SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already
> downloaded
> Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed
> Package ffmpeg-lib
On 2/25/19 10:33 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
> Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed
>
> with this error:
>
>
> [SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded
> Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed
> Package ffmpeg-libs-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_6
Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed
with this error:
[SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already
downloaded
Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package ffmpeg-libs-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package libavdevice-4.1.1-7.fc29.x
26 matches
Mail list logo
