morning, I wanted to do my weekly patches (dnf upgrade). I saw that dnf wanted
up upgrade the kernel to 6.11.3, but I did not see it wanting to bring in a newer version
of the rpmfusion nvidia driver. This looks like the sort of thing that caused me real
problems multiple times in the past. So I
On Oct 19, 2024, at 20:52, Bob Marčan via users
wrote:
> A kind of windows registry and systemd are a good example of this.
> And don't apologize systemd for how much the boot time has shortened.
> How often does the system need start or restart?
> Not to mention that it looks like systemd will r
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:25:06 -0600
"home user via users" wrote:
> On 10/19/24 2:07 PM, Bob Marčan via users wrote:
> > With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to
> > reject all the hardware it uses if possible.
> > The first condition for my purchases is that the equip
On 10/19/24 2:07 PM, Bob Marčan via users wrote:
With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to reject
all the hardware it uses if possible.
The first condition for my purchases is that the equipment has nothing from
this ignorant company.
BR
yeah, I hoping that somet
On 10/19/24 4:06 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 19/10/2024 18:28, home user via users wrote:
On 10/18/24 3:55 PM, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
(George)
Do the upgrade and check to see if the rpmfusion module works.
I tried it. It worked. ...this time
On 19/10/2024 18:28, home user via users wrote:
On 10/18/24 3:55 PM, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
(George)
Do the upgrade and check to see if the rpmfusion module works.
I tried it. It worked. ...this time!
That's good to know. Please will you
With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to reject
all the hardware it uses if possible.
The first condition for my purchases is that the equipment has nothing from
this ignorant company.
BR
--
___
users mailing list -- use
morning, I wanted to do my weekly patches (dnf upgrade). I saw that dnf wanted
up upgrade the kernel to 6.11.3, but I did not see it wanting to bring in a newer version
of the rpmfusion nvidia driver. This looks like the sort of thing that caused me real
problems multiple times in the past. So I
On 19/10/2024 01:10, home user via users wrote:
On 10/18/24 4:37 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 18/10/2024 22:55, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I have not been able to figure out how the rpmfusion nvidia version
numbers relate to the kernel version numbers
iMac which only has Nvidia and needs the 470xx driver.
Nvidia has always been "high maintenance", and has reached the
point at which I don't have the time to deal with the Nvidia issues.
> >>
> >> I have not been able to figure out how the rpmfusion nvidia version
>
GNU/Linux
-bash.3[~]:
- - - - - -
Yesterday morning, I wanted to do my weekly patches (dnf upgrade). I saw that dnf wanted
up upgrade the kernel to 6.11.3, but I did not see it wanting to bring in a newer version
of the rpmfusion nvidia driver. This looks like the sort of thing that caused me real
morning, I wanted to do my weekly patches (dnf upgrade). I
saw that dnf wanted up upgrade the kernel to 6.11.3, but I did not see
it wanting to bring in a newer version of the rpmfusion nvidia driver.
This looks like the sort of thing that caused me real problems multiple
times in the past. So
upgrade). I saw that dnf wanted
up upgrade the kernel to 6.11.3, but I did not see it wanting to bring in a newer version
of the rpmfusion nvidia driver. This looks like the sort of thing that caused me real
problems multiple times in the past. So I "declined" the upgrade. I tried
a
me the Github URL to get
the upgrade.
Hence I need to approach the Rpmfusion guys to see if they can
upgrade the server to the latest version.
I ran into the same problem and I've been able to work around it.
RPMFusion currently distributes version 10.8.13 of Jellyfin. My TV
c
.
Hence I need to approach the Rpmfusion guys to see if they can
upgrade the server to the latest version.
I ran into the same problem and I've been able to work around it.
RPMFusion currently distributes version 10.8.13 of Jellyfin. My TV
client complained that this was too far out of
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 6:19 PM Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> I have installed Jellyfin from rpmfusion by following the
> instructions on the Jellyfin web site for Fedora.
> After activating Developer Mode on my TV I used Docker to install
> the Jellyfin client on the TV.
&
Rpmfusion guys to see if they can
upgrade the server to the latest version.
I ran into the same problem and I've been able to work around it.
RPMFusion currently distributes version 10.8.13 of Jellyfin. My TV
client complained that this was too far out of date. The current
release of Jellyf
On 6/10/24 5:18 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi,
I have installed Jellyfin from rpmfusion by following the
instructions on the Jellyfin web site for Fedora.
After activating Developer Mode on my TV I used Docker to install
the Jellyfin client on the TV.
I ran the Jellyfin script to
Hi,
I have installed Jellyfin from rpmfusion by following the
instructions on the Jellyfin web site for Fedora.
After activating Developer Mode on my TV I used Docker to install
the Jellyfin client on the TV.
I ran the Jellyfin script to open up Jellyfin in Firewalld (After
Had to have machine with older card keep running the 6.7.11
kernel in order to have a working nvidia driver for BOINC.
The newer ones now work with the 6.8 kernels.
Just to let others know.
++
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science I
On 25/12/23 02:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I just did an upgrade on my Fedora 38(-ish) machine and dnf wants to
replace the rpmfusion version of vlc:
Name: vlc
Epoch : 1
Version : 3.0.19
Release : 0.7.fc39
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 22 Aug
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 04:55:50PM +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> Am 24.12.23 um 16:20 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> >Is there some advantage here? I don't want to lose the ability to
> >playback weird / proprietary stuff, which is (I assume) why I needed
> >to use
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 10:21 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I just did an upgrade on my Fedora 38(-ish) machine and dnf wants to
> replace the rpmfusion version of vlc:
[vlc 3.0.19 from rpmfusion -> 3.0.20 from fedora-updates]
> Is there some advantage here?
One change I hav
Am 24.12.23 um 16:20 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
Is there some advantage here? I don't want to lose the ability to
playback weird / proprietary stuff, which is (I assume) why I needed
to use vlc from rpmfusion.
I think, this posting says enough:
https://twitter.com/rpmfusion_team/s
I just did an upgrade on my Fedora 38(-ish) machine and dnf wants to
replace the rpmfusion version of vlc:
Name: vlc
Epoch : 1
Version : 3.0.19
Release : 0.7.fc39
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 22 Aug 2023 11:56:54 BST
Group : Unspecified
Size
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:02:18 -
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Rpmfusion's vlc needs updating to be compatible with live555.
Yep, after checking where things were installed from on my system,
I saw that vlc was already installed from rpmfusion, so I set
the priority of all rpmfusion repos
r a couple hours and seem to work fine. Once updated,
then live555 can be updated as well. Not in the Rpmfusion repo yet.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedo
I would uninstall the vlc-core from the fedora repos and install the
one from rpmfusion.
The issues seem to generally be with tools(ffmpeg, mplayer, vlc, all
media players, likely some other tools) that have pieces that have
some sort of legal complication such that IBM/Redhat not going to
ve555-2023.03.30-1.fc38.x86_64 from @System
- cannot install both live555-2023.03.30-1.fc38.x86_64 from rpmfusion-free
and live555-2023.06.20-2.fc38.x86_64 from updates
- cannot install the best update candidate for package
vlc-core-1:3.0.19-0.3.fc38.1.x86_64
- cannot install the best update candidat
On 10/1/23 13:05, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
On 1/9/23 20:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
I'm not sure if it is significant, but I am using gdm as my display
manager even though I am booting into KDE.
This is a (very nasty) kernel bug. It's been discussed quite a bit on
this list, so you can have
kernel-6.0.18-200.fc36 and kernel-6.0.18-399.fc37 were pushed to stable
6 hours ago. I installed for fc36 last night from the updates page. No
problem in booting and none have been seen overnight.
John P
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedorap
On 10/1/23 11:29, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:20, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 9/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
Maybe this is
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216895, referred to
in this current thread:
Re: Fedora 37 hangs after graphical login
I have two cifs mountin
On 10/1/23 11:20, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 9/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
Maybe this is https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216895,
referred to in this current thread:
Re: Fedora 37 hangs after graphical login
I have two cifs mounting lines in /etc/fstab; only one has the
h
On 9/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
Maybe this is https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216895,
referred to in this current thread:
Re: Fedora 37 hangs after graphical login
I have two cifs mounting lines in /etc/fstab; only one has the
hardware connected.
I have cifs... ver
Maybe this is https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216895,
referred to in this current thread:
Re: Fedora 37 hangs after graphical login
I have two cifs mounting lines in /etc/fstab; only one has the
hardware connected.
I have cifs... vers=3.0,
//192.168.1.XX/Public /mnt/nas1a
On 9/1/23 01:53, John Pilkington wrote:
On 08/01/2023 13:58, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
On 08/01/2023 02:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 12:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xor
On 08/01/2023 13:58, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
On 08/01/2023 02:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 12:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xorg doesn't write
its log to /var/log) as
On 8/1/23 21:26, John Pilkington wrote:
On 08/01/2023 02:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 12:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xorg doesn't write
its log to /var/log) as the end of my log file is completely
differ
On 08/01/2023 02:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 8/1/23 12:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xorg doesn't write
its log to /var/log) as the end of my log file is completely
different to what you are showing. I also don't
On 8/1/23 12:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xorg doesn't write
its log to /var/log) as the end of my log file is completely
different to what you are showing. I also don't have an xorg.conf
file as I can get the 4K
On 1/7/23 17:24, Stephen Morris wrote:
I've attached ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log (my Xorg doesn't write its
log to /var/log) as the end of my log file is completely different to
what you are showing. I also don't have an xorg.conf file as I can get
the 4K resolution I run with without the ne
On 7/1/23 22:06, John Pilkington wrote:
On 07/01/2023 03:30, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 6/1/23 22:22, John Pilkington wrote:
Heads up. After today's updates I get black unresponsive screens.
OK in 6.0.15
I'm using the nvidia 525.60.11 driver from
rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver and t
On 07/01/2023 03:30, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 6/1/23 22:22, John Pilkington wrote:
Heads up. After today's updates I get black unresponsive screens. OK
in 6.0.15
I'm using the nvidia 525.60.11 driver from
rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver and there is no issue with kernel 6.0.16.
On 6/1/23 22:22, John Pilkington wrote:
Heads up. After today's updates I get black unresponsive screens. OK
in 6.0.15
I'm using the nvidia 525.60.11 driver from
rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver and there is no issue with kernel 6.0.16.
rega
Heads up. After today's updates I get black unresponsive screens. OK in
6.0.15
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproje
in the
affirmative both times, and all that did was enable the rpmfusion
nvidia and steam repositories, it did not enable the
rpmfusion-nonfree nor the rpmfusion-free repositories, I had to
actually install them manually. Why, as I assumed the 3rd party
repositories were the rpmfusion ones
h times,
> and all that did was enable the rpmfusion nvidia and steam repositories, it
> did not enable the rpmfusion-nonfree nor the rpmfusion-free repositories, I
> had to actually install them manually. Why, as I assumed the 3rd party
> repositories were the rpmfusion ones?
Hi,
As part of the install of F36 from the live CD I have, there is a
question asking whether or not to install 3rd party repositories. I have
done the install twice and replied to the message in the affirmative
both times, and all that did was enable the rpmfusion nvidia and steam
configuration
> issue.
Many years ago I set up my own DNS server because my ISP's were
terrible. While I'd expect Google's to be good, did you try other
remote ones?
It could be that rpmfusion was updating their records, and something
hadn't propagated through.
My DN
On 18 Oct 2022 at 15:41, Tim wrote:
Subject:Re: dnf with rpmfusion not working? Are
others seeing this?
From: Tim
To: mi...@guam.net, Community support for
Fedora users
Date sent: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:41:03 +1030
>
On Tue, 2022-10-18 at 04:44 +1000, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
> dig @8.8.8.8 download1.rpmfusion.org
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.16.33-RH <<>> @8.8.8.8
> download1.rpmfusion.org
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 36512
> ;;
Check my local dns and google's get not address?
dig @8.8.8.8 download1.rpmfusion.org
; <<>> DiG 9.16.33-RH <<>> @8.8.8.8
download1.rpmfusion.org
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 36512
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANS
On 03/11/2021 08:02, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 23:51:29 +
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Thanks Ed. I'm happy to see my modest GTX 1050 is supported.
As is my even more modest GTX 960 :-).
I'm currently stuck with a "modester" GTX 660. :-(
--
On Facebook it is called Vaguebook
On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 23:51:29 +
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Thanks Ed. I'm happy to see my modest GTX 1050 is supported.
As is my even more modest GTX 960 :-).
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to u
On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 06:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 05:59, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > If you are running F35 and the nVidia drivers from rpmFusion be
> > careful before you update the nVidia drivers.
> >
> > The nVidia drivers update to 495 drops support
On 03/11/2021 05:59, Ed Greshko wrote:
If you are running F35 and the nVidia drivers from rpmFusion be careful before
you update the nVidia drivers.
The nVidia drivers update to 495 drops support for some GPUs. But the update
doesn't check for that. So,
you may end up with a system w
If you are running F35 and the nVidia drivers from rpmFusion be careful before
you update the nVidia drivers.
The nVidia drivers update to 495 drops support for some GPUs. But the update
doesn't check for that. So,
you may end up with a system with a broken GUI desktop. In my case,
On 2020-07-26 11:13, Jerry James wrote:
It means that rpmfusion is running ahead. They pushed vlc to stable
before the Fedora libebml-1.4.0-1.fc32 and libmatroska-1.6.0-1 updates
went stable:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c5e96618e7
It should clear up soon, once the
On 2020-07-26 11:09, Tom Horsley wrote:
I usually just give things a few days to get back in sync. Tends to happen
eventually. I got the same error yesterday.
.
Yes I thought the same except it seems unusual to get such a lengthy
explanation of it not updating?
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virgi
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:01 AM Bob Goodwin wrote:
> I guess this means
> rpmfusion is running behind, or does it imply something else? I update
> first thing each morning and such an explanation seems unusual:
It means that rpmfusion is running ahead. They pushed vlc to stable
b
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 11:01:04 -0400
Bob Goodwin wrote:
> I guess this means
> rpmfusion is running behind, or does it imply something else? I update
> first thing each morning and such an explanation seems unusual:
I usually just give things a few days to get back in sync. Tends
I guess this means
rpmfusion is running behind, or does it imply something else? I update
first thing each morning and such an explanation seems unusual:
[root@WS1 bobg]# dnf update
Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:18 ago on Sun Jul 26 06:05:27 2020.
Dependencies resolved.
Problem 1
On 2020-05-23 19:07, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Are they changes for ever?
The issue has been corrected.
You can restore the original settings.
--
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraprojec
On 2020-05-23 19:07, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I had to change all the rpmfusion repo files.
>
> Are they changes for ever?:
No. I expect it will be sorted by rpmFusion at some point. You may want to
join their mailing list
to find out when it get fixed.
>
>
Sat, 23 May 2020 13:19:21 +0200
"Patrick Dupre" kirjoitti:
> I put
> exclude=skype
> and tried skype=false
> in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
> but, it still wants to install skype
>
> messing up all installs
>
> > Thanks,
Package name is skypeforlinux, try that..
Jarmo
__
I put
exclude=skype
and tried skype=false
in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
but, it still wants to install skype
messing up all installs
> Thanks,
>
> I had to change all the rpmfusion repo files.
>
> Are they changes for ever?:
>
> But, I also have the issue for skype:
>
> Errors
Thanks,
I had to change all the rpmfusion repo files.
Are they changes for ever?:
But, I also have the issue foro skype:
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'skype-stable':
- Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for
https://repo.skype.com/rpm/stable/repodata/
On 2020-05-23 18:31, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Trying to update a fedora 30 (which has been updated ~ 2 weeks ago), I get
>
> Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'rpmfusion-free-updates':
> - Curl error (60): SSL peer certificate or SSH remote
Hello,
Trying to update a fedora 30 (which has been updated ~ 2 weeks ago), I get
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'rpmfusion-free-updates':
- Curl error (60): SSL peer certificate or SSH remote key was not OK for
https://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/metalink?repo=f
On 7/11/19 12:05 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I just realized I didn't have the "tainted" repos installed.
I know that feeling. :-)
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default
color scheme
___
users mailing list -- u
On 7/10/19 8:59 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 7/11/19 11:57 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Which repo file did you install? I'm hoping you used the -release rpms from
rpmfusion.
But you must have added some other repo as well though. I don't see any
dvb-firmware
package in either Fedora or
On 7/10/19 7:05 PM, JD wrote:
warning:
/var/cache/dnf/rpmfusion-free-updates-c9c282509e45419b/packages/mpv-0.29.1-6.fc30.x86_64.rpm:
Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID c0aeda6e: NOKEY
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free -
Updates 0.0 B/s | 0
B
etween attempted
>> installs of
>> ivtv-firmware-2:20080701-36.fc30.noarch and
>> dvb-firmware-20170329-4.git3fef04a.fc30.noarch
>
> Which repo file did you install? I'm hoping you used the -release rpms from
> rpmfusion.
> But you must have added some oth
.noarch
Which repo file did you install? I'm hoping you used the -release rpms
from rpmfusion.
But you must have added some other repo as well though. I don't see any
dvb-firmware package in either Fedora or rpmfusion.
___
users mailing lis
Installed the repo file, but
dnf install \*-firmware
yields
rror: Transaction check error:
file /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw conflicts between attempted
installs of ivtv-firmware-2:20080701-36.fc30.noarch and
dvb-firmware-20170329-4.git3fef04a.fc30.noarch
file /lib/firmware/v4l-c
ies resolved.
> ===
>
> Package Architecture Version Repository
> Size
> ===
>
> Installing:
> smplayer x86_64
Version
Repository Size
===
Installing:
smplayer x86_64 19.5.0-1.fc30
rpmfusion-free-updates 3.7 M
Upgrading:
x264-libs
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:25 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Change boot parameters
>
> # grub2-editenv - set kernelopts="root=UUID=blahblahblahuuidblahblah
> ro rootflags=subvol=root30 enable_mtrr_cleanup=1 zswap.enabled=1
> zswap.max_pool_percent=25 zswap.compressor=lz4 no_console_suspend"
You can al
By the way, there really is a minus symbol in the second position. I
think that's the placeholder for [FILE] if you look at the man page
for grub2-editenv, and that file is the grubenv. And now I'm gonna
look at some Rube Goldberg cartoons.
--
Chris Murphy
_
ut the state
> of the rpmfusion nvidia drivers and what they
> can deal with when changing kernel options
> (to blacklist nouveau).
>
> How much trouble are folks using the nvidia binaries
> in with the new grub stuff?
I don't have any Nvidia computers, but I have one with busted
I have theoretically disabled the BLS stuff
(so I can boot fedora 30 with the configfile
command from an older grub that knows nothing
of the BLS support in the configfile).
This worked, but now I wonder about the state
of the rpmfusion nvidia drivers and what they
can deal with when changing
On 4/13/19 2:54 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> That was easy. It even worked with my Fedora login (this time,
> the time before it gave me a bunch of ...).
>
> Is rpmfusion-users the right place to go to ask for
> a package? Is that what they mean by "Wiki"?
Well,
On 4/12/19 11:47 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 4/13/19 2:33 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Maybe I am just tied, but I can't find my own nose over
there. What mailing list?
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/archives/
In particular
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/archives/list/rpmfusi
On 4/13/19 2:33 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Maybe I am just tied, but I can't find my own nose over
> there. What mailing list?
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/archives/
In particular
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/archives/list/rpmfusion-us...@lists.rpmfusion.
account.
I'll report on the User's List for you. Did notice this since I've had an
account for ages.
And, why are you asking here and not the rpmfusion user's list?
Seriously? I can't do anything over there.
What does that mean? Not able to register for the
;>>
>>
>> The link you were pointed to has another link in it.
>>
>> The key phrase being
>>
>> Place a request (request is a link to)
>>
>> https://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist
>>
>> The, you'll need a "login" in order t
The key phrase being
Place a request (request is a link to)
https://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist
The, you'll need a "login" in order to edit that page to place your request.
Unknown action newaccount.
And, why are you asking here and not the rpmfusion user'
here the $*&# is the "Wiki"?
>
The link you were pointed to has another link in it.
The key phrase being
Place a request (request is a link to)
https://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist
The, you'll need a "login" in order to edit that page to place your request.
And
On 4/12/19 8:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Okay, I give up. I can find everyone else's requests for packages
in RPM Fusion, but I can't find the form to fill out for a
new request.
Have you read this entry in the RPM Fusion FAQ?
https://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#I_would_
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Okay, I give up. I can find everyone else's requests for packages
> in RPM Fusion, but I can't find the form to fill out for a
> new request.
Have you read this entry in the RPM Fusion FAQ?
https://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#I_would_like_to_see_an_RPM_for_package_X._What_s
Hi All,
Okay, I give up. I can find everyone else's requests for packages
in RPM Fusion, but I can't find the form to fill out for a
new request.
-T
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@li
On 09/15/2018 11:05 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 11:02 -0600, JD wrote:
On 09/15/2018 10:38 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote:
Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases.
Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'e
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 11:02 -0600, JD wrote:
>
> On 09/15/2018 10:38 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote:
> > > Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases.
> > >
> > > Does rpmfusion have a l
On 09/15/2018 10:38 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote:
Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases.
Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'ed releases?
http://archive.rpmfusion.org/
Found the link here: https://lisas.de/~adri
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote:
> Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases.
>
> Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'ed releases?
http://archive.rpmfusion.org/
Found the link here: https://lisas.de/~adria
Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases.
Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'ed releases?
Thanx!!
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
F
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:32:16 +0200
"K. Cong" wrote:
> Does anyone know the situation of Chromium and
> chromium-libs-media-freeworld? It seems the new
> chromium-libs-media-freeworld package from rpmfusion-free-updates has
> some conflicts with packages in updates.
>
Does anyone know the situation of Chromium and
chromium-libs-media-freeworld? It seems the new
chromium-libs-media-freeworld package from rpmfusion-free-updates has
some conflicts with packages in updates.
dnf update gives me the following:
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '-
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 10:37 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 01/28/2017 09:16 AM, Alex wrote:
> > >
> > > However, trying to install them from the rpmfusion rawhide packages
> > > shows multipl
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 01/28/2017 09:16 AM, Alex wrote:
>>
>> However, trying to install them from the rpmfusion rawhide packages
>> shows multiple dependencies:
>>
>> I've tried to include --allowerasing and --best but
1 - 100 of 335 matches
Mail list logo
