Re: [F43] OpenH264 or NoOpenH264?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Fabio Valentini venit, vidit, dixit 2025-09-11 16:21:48:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 1:53 PM Marcin Juszkiewicz
> <mjuszkiewicz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > As Fedora 43 gets into Beta I wanted to upgrade my system.
> >
> >   Problem 3: package chromium-139.0.7258.138-1.fc43.aarch64 from fedora requires libopenh264.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >    - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.aarch64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.aarch64 from fedora
> >    - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.aarch64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.aarch64 from fedora
> >    - problem with installed package
> >    - installed package mozilla-openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.aarch64 requires libopenh264.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >    - installed package mozilla-openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.aarch64 requires openh264(aarch-64) = 2.5.1-1.fc42, but none of the providers can be installed
> >    - chromium-140.0.7339.80-1.fc42.aarch64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >    - problem with installed package
> 
> Did you by chance have manual modifications to the cisco openh264 repo
> that hard-codes the version to "42"?
> Because it looks like you're pulling in the contents of the repo for
> F42 instead of for F43 (Fedora 43+ has openh264 2.6.0, not 2.5).

All mentioned fc42 packages are "installed", not "from <repo>".

Apparantly, "noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.aarch64 from fedora" is the only
available package which fulfills the requirement
"libopenh264.so.8()(64bit)" of "package
chromium-139.0.7258.138-1.fc43.aarch64 from fedora"

So either the cisco repo is disabled, or version hard-coded, or it does
not have the proper version for fc43 yet.

The original poster has solved this problem by ditching the cisco 
stuff for noopenh264 already, which - according to my experience - is
a much more hasslefree experience. According to some (including me) it
is also much more in line with Fedora's FOSS principles.

Michael
-- 
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux