On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:51 PM Michael J Gruber <m...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > 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.
Replacing a working H.264 implementation with a stub library that will break if used doesn't sound very "hassle free" to me ... But yes, it does look as if the fedora-cisco-openh264 repo was either disabled or broken when this update was attempted. That's what I was asking about. I just checked, and the repos hosted by Cisco seem to have the correct package contents for aarch64, so that shouldn't be the issue. Fabio -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
