Re: APX and AVX10 compiled binaries coming to Clear Linux this week how about Fedora?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2024-06-29 at 02:18 +, Ryan Bach via users wrote:
> https://community.clearlinux.org/t/apx-and-avx10-compiled-binaries-coming-to-clear-linux-this-week/9421
> 
> Does Fedora 41 have x86-64-1-4 optimized rpms to select from?

The current release of Fedora is 40. Questions regarding the future F41
are better asked on the Fedora Test list.

poc
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Seamonkey not displaying pix

[Beartooth]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:44:01 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

> Beartooth composed on 2024-06-28 15:51 (UTC):
> 
>>> Beartooth wrote:
> 
Seamonkey under the last several releases of Fedora Linux does not
 display pix. It says, inter alia, "Error: could not load." It also
 gives me a link to Media Viewer; but the help page for that is over
 my head. []
It used to be a good browser. Can I fix it
> 
> Presumably you're using the Fedora rpm. Try Buc's and/or Mozilla's
> binaries to see if it makes any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Renaming ~/.mozilla/seamonkey is a sledgehammer. SeaMonkey has a
> -profilemanager switch same as Firefox, for adding, deleting & modifying
> profiles, including moving them to a more convenient location.

What's a profile?
-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User
Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is.

-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

crazy dependencies

[Tim via users]

I'd like to know why this:

dnf remove gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64 gstreamer1-
plugins-bad-free-extras-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-
freeworld-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64

Wants to do all of this (quoted below), it's a virtual system destruct
for the want of removing some codecs.  What harebrained logic is
involved in working this out?  It's not competent computer coding by
any stretch of the imagination.

I'd say that nearly ALL of those things would have been installed on
the system before I'd installed those gstreamer things, so they're
clearly NOT "dependent" on them.

As to why I want to remove them, I'm trying to narrow down why playing
some video files *sometimes* crash my system hard.  And I say
"sometimes" because at other times the same video file will play
without any problems.

Putting noautoremove into the command reduces the list of things it
shouldn't interfere with down from 153 to 46 packages, but it's still
interfering with things it shouldn't touch, and will end up destroying
the system.

I'm yet to see if it actually helps with the crashing problem, but I
had to resort to:  rpm -e --nodeps gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.20.3-
1.fc36.x86_64 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-extras-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64


Dependencies resolved.
===
==
 Package ArchVersion  
RepositorySize
===
==
Removing:
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free x86_64  1.20.3-1.fc36
@updates 9.6 M
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-extras  x86_64  1.20.3-1.fc36
@updates 1.4 M
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworldx86_64  1:1.20.3-1.fc36  
@rpmfusion-free-updates  761 k
Removing dependent packages:
 NetworkManager-l2tp-gnome   x86_64  1.20.8-1.fc36
@updates 270 k
 NetworkManager-libreswan-gnome  x86_64  1.2.16-1.fc36
@anaconda145 k
 NetworkManager-openconnect-gnomex86_64  1.2.8-2.fc36 
@updates 151 k
 NetworkManager-openvpn-gnomex86_64  1:1.8.18-1.fc36  
@anaconda370 k
 NetworkManager-pptp-gnome   x86_64  1:1.2.10-1.fc36  
@anaconda143 k
 NetworkManager-sstp-gnome   x86_64  1:1.3.1-1.fc36   
@updates 297 k
 NetworkManager-strongswan-gnome x86_64  1.6.0-1.fc36 
@updates 158 k
 NetworkManager-vpnc-gnome   x86_64  1:1.2.8-1.fc36   
@anaconda152 k
 anacondax86_64  36.16.5-2.fc36   
@updates   0  
 anaconda-live   x86_64  36.16.5-2.fc36   
@updates  25 k
 atril   x86_64  1.26.1-1.fc36
@updates  13 M
 atril-caja  x86_64  1.26.1-1.fc36
@updates  34 k
 atril-thumbnailer   x86_64  1.26.1-1.fc36
@updates 583  
 evolution   x86_64  3.44.4-3.fc36
@updates  17 M
 fusion-icon noarch  1:0.2.4-19.fc36  
@anaconda121 k
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-fluidsynth  x86_64  1.20.3-1.fc36
@updates  32 k
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-wildmidix86_64  1.20.3-1.fc36
@updates  28 k
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-zbarx86_64  1.20.3-1.fc36
@updates  24 k
 ibus-gtk4   x86_64  1.5.26-9.fc36
@updates  40 k
 initial-setup-gui   x86_64  0.3.94-2.fc36
@anaconda 26 k
 kdump-anaconda-addonnoarch  006-
6.20220128git9603258.fc36@anaconda165 k
 mate-desktopx86_64  1.26.1-1.fc36
@updates 176 k
 mate-system-monitor x86_64  1.26.0-2.fc36
@anaconda 11 M
 mate-user-guide noarch  1.26.0-2.fc36
@anaconda 74 M
 pidgin  x86_64  2.14.8-5.fc36
@updates 3.2 M
 purple-facebook x86_64  0.9.6-11.fc36
@fedora  265 k
 yelpx86_64  2:42.2-1.fc36
@updates 2.2 M
Removing unused dependencies:
 GraphicsMagick  x86_64  1.3.38-2.fc36
@updates 4.9 M
 NetworkManager-l2tp x86_64  1.20.8-1.fc36
@updates

Re: APX and AVX10 compiled binaries coming to Clear Linux this week how about Fedora?

[Barry Scott]

> On 29 Jun 2024, at 03:18, Ryan Bach via users  
> wrote:
> 
> https://community.clearlinux.org/t/apx-and-avx10-compiled-binaries-coming-to-clear-linux-this-week/9421
> 
> Does Fedora 41 have x86-64-1-4 optimized rpms to select from?

There are two parts to this. The first is that all Fedora RPMs are compiled to 
x86-64-v1.

The second part is that there are programs packaged by Fedora that detect the
micro-architecture and run optimised code paths depending on what is detected.

You can see what your micro-architecure support is with this command:

/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help

Which for my main desktop system reports at the end:

This program interpreter self-identifies as: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

Shared library search path:
  (libraries located via /etc/ld.so.cache)
  /lib64 (system search path)
  /usr/lib64 (system search path)

Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:
  x86-64-v4
  x86-64-v3 (supported, searched)
  x86-64-v2 (supported, searched)

You can see from this that there is support for searching for 
micro-architectures
specific code.

Depending on the software that you care about this may or may not be doing this.
For most packages compiling to x86-64-v4 make little or no performance 
difference.

At the moment there is no plan to rebase Fedora on x86-64-v2 let alone 
x86-64-v4.

Barry


> -- 
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: crazy dependencies

[Tom Horsley]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 01:04:47 +0930
Tim via users wrote:

> As to why I want to remove them, I'm trying to narrow down why playing
> some video files *sometimes* crash my system hard.

Instead of trying to do thing the "right" way with dnf, you could just
move the codec files to a different directory so it won't be able
to load them. rpm --list can tell you what files are installed
by what rpm.
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Seamonkey not displaying pix

[Felix Miata]

Beartooth composed on 2024-06-29 14:51 (UTC):

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:44:01 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

>> Renaming ~/.mozilla/seamonkey is a sledgehammer. SeaMonkey has a
>> -profilemanager switch same as Firefox, for adding, deleting & modifying
>> profiles, including moving them to a more convenient location.

>   What's a profile?

Look in your SeaMonkey browser window's "Tools" menu, at the bottom. It's 
exactly
the same concept as in Firefox, and most any other web browser:
https://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/profiles

It's much like a user login in /etc/passwd. You can create as many users on your
Fedora OS as you please. Similar goes for browser profiles, except *each* user
login may have as many browser profiles as he cares to create (possibly limited 
to
64 or 128). ~/.mozilla/seamonkey is a directory that defines it or them. ATM I
have 6 for SeaMonkey and 20 for Firefox.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[F40] Cannot boot live version from USB drive with UEFI BIOS

[Frédéric]

Hi,

I created a USB stick with a live version of Fedora 40. I tried both
the default version and the KDE Spin. I tried using dd and using
mediawriter. Same result: I cannot boot on the USB drive if my BIOS is
configured in UEFI as it is to boot from my hard disk on Fedora 38. It
says that there is no bootable drive.
Note that I need a USB stick because I want to change my hard drive.

I noticed that I can still boot F30 from an old live USB drive and you
can see below that the output of dmesg is not the same for both Fedora
versions. With the F40 image, I see an error:
[ 1543.382799] GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the end
of the disk.
[ 1543.382808] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
[ 1543.382810] GPT:Alternate GPT header not at the end of the disk.
[ 1543.382811] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
[ 1543.382812] GPT: Use GNU Parted to correct GPT errors.

I tried to boot with legacy BIOS and it works but then when I want to
install F40 on the new hard drive, I have the impression it wants to
install it for legacy BIOS and not for UEFI which I would like to
keep.

If there is another mean to install Fedora on a new hard drive, please
share. I can plug the new hard drive as USB3.

Thanks for your help,

F


* Wrong 16Gb USB drive with Fedora 40:
[ 1538.568176] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 7 using xhci_hcd
[ 1538.712071] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=13fe,
idProduct=4300, bcdDevice= 1.00
[ 1538.712076] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[ 1538.712078] usb 1-2: Product: USB DISK 2.0
[ 1538.712079] usb 1-2: Manufacturer:
[ 1538.712081] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 90001BE41456D415
[ 1538.750293] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
[ 1538.750731] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
[ 1538.750849] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage
[ 1538.753986] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas
[ 1543.343362] scsi 2:0:0:0: Direct-Access  USB DISK 2.0
  PMAP PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
[ 1543.343897] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
[ 1543.347353] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] 31129600 512-byte logical blocks:
(15.9 GB/14.8 GiB)
[ 1543.349296] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
[ 1543.349303] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 23 00 00 00
[ 1543.350640] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] No Caching mode page found
[ 1543.350644] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
[ 1543.382799] GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the end
of the disk.
[ 1543.382808] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
[ 1543.382810] GPT:Alternate GPT header not at the end of the disk.
[ 1543.382811] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
[ 1543.382812] GPT: Use GNU Parted to correct GPT errors.
[ 1543.382825]  sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
[ 1543.383329] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI removable disk

* Good 2Gb USB drive with Fedora 30:
[ 1787.688538] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 8 using xhci_hcd
[ 1787.831168] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=13fe,
idProduct=4300, bcdDevice= 1.00
[ 1787.831174] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[ 1787.831175] usb 1-2: Product: USB DISK 2.0
[ 1787.831177] usb 1-2: Manufacturer:
[ 1787.831178] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 90001BE41456D415
[ 1787.833958] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
[ 1787.834375] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
[ 1787.904743] usb 1-2: USB disconnect, device number 8
[ 1807.817157] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 9 using xhci_hcd
[ 1807.943543] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=abcd,
idProduct=1234, bcdDevice= 1.00
[ 1807.943548] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[ 1807.943549] usb 1-2: Product: UDisk
[ 1807.943551] usb 1-2: Manufacturer: General
[ 1807.943552] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: Љ
[ 1807.945178] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
[ 1807.945607] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
[ 1808.995462] scsi 2:0:0:0: Direct-Access General  UDisk
  5.00 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[ 1808.995956] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
[ 1808.996710] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] 3911680 512-byte logical blocks:
(2.00 GB/1.87 GiB)
[ 1808.996829] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
[ 1808.996833] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 0b 00 00 08
[ 1808.996947] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] No Caching mode page found
[ 1808.996949] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
[ 1808.998657]  sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
[ 1808.998903] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI removable disk
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [F40] Cannot boot live version from USB drive with UEFI BIOS

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 1:02 PM Frédéric  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I created a USB stick with a live version of Fedora 40. I tried both
> the default version and the KDE Spin. I tried using dd and using
> mediawriter. Same result: I cannot boot on the USB drive if my BIOS is
> configured in UEFI as it is to boot from my hard disk on Fedora 38. It
> says that there is no bootable drive.
> Note that I need a USB stick because I want to change my hard drive.
>
> I noticed that I can still boot F30 from an old live USB drive and you
> can see below that the output of dmesg is not the same for both Fedora
> versions. With the F40 image, I see an error:
> [ 1543.382799] GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the end
> of the disk.
> [ 1543.382808] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
> [ 1543.382810] GPT:Alternate GPT header not at the end of the disk.
> [ 1543.382811] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
> [ 1543.382812] GPT: Use GNU Parted to correct GPT errors.
>
> I tried to boot with legacy BIOS and it works but then when I want to
> install F40 on the new hard drive, I have the impression it wants to
> install it for legacy BIOS and not for UEFI which I would like to
> keep.
>
> If there is another mean to install Fedora on a new hard drive, please
> share. I can plug the new hard drive as USB3.
>
> Thanks for your help,

Here is what the 'GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the
end of the disk' message means:
.

> * Wrong 16Gb USB drive with Fedora 40:
> [ 1538.568176] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 7 using xhci_hcd
> [ 1538.712071] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=13fe,
> idProduct=4300, bcdDevice= 1.00
> [ 1538.712076] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, 
> SerialNumber=3
> [ 1538.712078] usb 1-2: Product: USB DISK 2.0
> [ 1538.712079] usb 1-2: Manufacturer:
> [ 1538.712081] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 90001BE41456D415
> [ 1538.750293] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
> [ 1538.750731] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
> [ 1538.750849] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage
> [ 1538.753986] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas
> [ 1543.343362] scsi 2:0:0:0: Direct-Access  USB DISK 2.0
>   PMAP PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
> [ 1543.343897] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
> [ 1543.347353] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] 31129600 512-byte logical blocks:
> (15.9 GB/14.8 GiB)
> [ 1543.349296] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> [ 1543.349303] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 23 00 00 00
> [ 1543.350640] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] No Caching mode page found
> [ 1543.350644] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
> [ 1543.382799] GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the end
> of the disk.
> [ 1543.382808] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
> [ 1543.382810] GPT:Alternate GPT header not at the end of the disk.
> [ 1543.382811] GPT:4484087 != 31129599
> [ 1543.382812] GPT: Use GNU Parted to correct GPT errors.
> [ 1543.382825]  sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
> [ 1543.383329] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI removable disk
>
> * Good 2Gb USB drive with Fedora 30:
> [ 1787.688538] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 8 using xhci_hcd
> [ 1787.831168] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=13fe,
> idProduct=4300, bcdDevice= 1.00
> [ 1787.831174] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, 
> SerialNumber=3
> [ 1787.831175] usb 1-2: Product: USB DISK 2.0
> [ 1787.831177] usb 1-2: Manufacturer:
> [ 1787.831178] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 90001BE41456D415
> [ 1787.833958] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
> [ 1787.834375] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
> [ 1787.904743] usb 1-2: USB disconnect, device number 8
> [ 1807.817157] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 9 using xhci_hcd
> [ 1807.943543] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=abcd,
> idProduct=1234, bcdDevice= 1.00
> [ 1807.943548] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, 
> SerialNumber=3
> [ 1807.943549] usb 1-2: Product: UDisk
> [ 1807.943551] usb 1-2: Manufacturer: General
> [ 1807.943552] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: Љ
> [ 1807.945178] usb-storage 1-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
> [ 1807.945607] scsi host2: usb-storage 1-2:1.0
> [ 1808.995462] scsi 2:0:0:0: Direct-Access General  UDisk
>   5.00 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
> [ 1808.995956] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
> [ 1808.996710] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] 3911680 512-byte logical blocks:
> (2.00 GB/1.87 GiB)
> [ 1808.996829] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> [ 1808.996833] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 0b 00 00 08
> [ 1808.996947] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] No Caching mode page found
> [ 1808.996949] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
> [ 1808.998657]  sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
> [ 1808.998903] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI removable disk

Is the USB drive any good? Is it one of those Chinese knock-offs that
mis-report its size? See
,https://www.google.com/search?q=counterfeit+USB+drive+misreport+capacity>.

Jeff
-- 
_

Re: crazy dependencies

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/29/24 8:34 AM, Tim via users wrote:

I'd like to know why this:

dnf remove gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64 gstreamer1-
plugins-bad-free-extras-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-
freeworld-1.20.3-1.fc36.x86_64

Wants to do all of this (quoted below), it's a virtual system destruct
for the want of removing some codecs.  What harebrained logic is
involved in working this out?  It's not competent computer coding by
any stretch of the imagination.

I'd say that nearly ALL of those things would have been installed on
the system before I'd installed those gstreamer things, so they're
clearly NOT "dependent" on them.

As to why I want to remove them, I'm trying to narrow down why playing
some video files *sometimes* crash my system hard.  And I say
"sometimes" because at other times the same video file will play
without any problems.


I didn't notice this originally, but you're still on F36 and expecting 
help with it??  Maybe you should try using something current instead of 
trying to track down issues in discontinued software.


In F40, this dependency chain doesn't exist:

# dnf remove gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free 
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-extras gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld 
--noautoremove

No match for argument: gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-extras
Dependencies resolved.
===
 Package
===
Removing:
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
 gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld
Removing dependent packages:
 cheese
 pitivi
 snapshot

Transaction Summary
===
Remove  6 Packages

I don't have the "extras" package installed, but the only dependency for 
that is "shotcut".


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

/boot too Small in F40

[Stephen Morris]

Hi,
    My /boot partition is 512MB, which in F39 was more than ample for 5 
kernels and a rescue image, but in F40 that partition is now to small 
for a new rescue image to be created when a new kernel is installed. The 
rescue image in F40 seems to be around 102MB in size which is more that 
double the size of any kernel, I don't know what size it was in F39.
    I've tried dropping the number of kernels retained to 4, but that 
still produces out of space conditions on new kernel installs with the 
rescue image.

Is F40 now rebuilding the rescue image where F39 didn't?
If I drop back to retaining only 3 kernels will that provide enough free 
space, currently /boot is using 360.2MB with 88MB free of the 512MB 
partition?
Is F40 really that much bigger the F39 that the /boot partition size, 
which I have always used across multiple Fedora versions, is no longer 
big enough to handle what F40 does relative to kernels?
I have my /boot partition on an SSD. I could run gparted to resize the 
boot partition by resizing the Windows drive C partition which is on the 
disk before it (a 512MB /boot partition for Ubuntu is immediately after 
the Fedora partition), but I don't really want to change the size of the 
Windows partition?


regards,
Steve


OpenPGP_0x594338B1DE179AB2.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: /boot too Small in F40

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/29/24 6:36 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

Hi,
     My /boot partition is 512MB, which in F39 was more than ample for 5 
kernels and a rescue image, but in F40 that partition is now to small 
for a new rescue image to be created when a new kernel is installed. The 
rescue image in F40 seems to be around 102MB in size which is more that 
double the size of any kernel, I don't know what size it was in F39.


That is normal.  It contains all the kernel modules, so it is much 
bigger.  And it's the initramfs, not kernel.  The kernel is the same size.


     I've tried dropping the number of kernels retained to 4, but that 
still produces out of space conditions on new kernel installs with the 
rescue image.

Is F40 now rebuilding the rescue image where F39 didn't?


The rescue kernel is always rebuilt if you delete the old one.  There's 
a setting somewhere to stop that.


If I drop back to retaining only 3 kernels will that provide enough free 
space, currently /boot is using 360.2MB with 88MB free of the 512MB 
partition?


My /boot is about 350MB with 3 kernels and the rescue.

Is F40 really that much bigger the F39 that the /boot partition size, 
which I have always used across multiple Fedora versions, is no longer 
big enough to handle what F40 does relative to kernels?


My latest F40 initramfs is actually smaller than the previous one and 
the F39 one.


I have my /boot partition on an SSD. I could run gparted to resize the 
boot partition by resizing the Windows drive C partition which is on the 
disk before it (a 512MB /boot partition for Ubuntu is immediately after 
the Fedora partition), but I don't really want to change the size of the 
Windows partition?


512MB is enough for the default 3 kernels.  Why do you need more than that?

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue