Hi Bob,
On 19/03/2023 10:18, Robert-André Mauchin via rpmfusion-developers wrote:
RPMFusion side, the following packages are affected:
xine-lib
xine-lib has been moved to Fedora.
Regards,
Xavier
___
devel mailing list --
On Sun, 2023-03-19 at 23:53 +, Sérgio Basto via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-03-19 at 19:43 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin via
> rpmfusion-
> developers wrote:
> > On 3/19/23 12:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > BTW add me (sergiomb) as co-maintainer (admin) for built libjxl
> > > for
On Sun, 2023-03-19 at 19:43 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> On 3/19/23 12:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > BTW add me (sergiomb) as co-maintainer (admin) for built libjxl for
> > EPEL 8
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170821
> >
> >
>
> Added you.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 5:28 PM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 19-03-2023 10:39, Leigh Scott wrote:
> >> RPMFusion side, the following packages are affected:
> >>
> >> libheif
> >> xine-lib
> >>
> > xine-lib and libheif are both fedora packages.
>
> Regarding libheif, the change from RPMFusion to Fedora is
On 19-03-2023 10:39, Leigh Scott wrote:
RPMFusion side, the following packages are affected:
libheif
xine-lib
xine-lib and libheif are both fedora packages.
Regarding libheif, the change from RPMFusion to Fedora is very recent.
The query might have been carried out before that happened.
On 3/19/23 12:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
BTW add me (sergiomb) as co-maintainer (admin) for built libjxl for
EPEL 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170821
Added you.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
BTW add me (sergiomb) as co-maintainer (admin) for built libjxl for
EPEL 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170821
On Sun, 2023-03-19 at 10:18 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am planning a soname bump of jpegxl to 0.8.1 next week
> xine-lib and libheif are both fedora packages.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YMOLJESUIIFK5RZYPGWTE362CKZH7JXV/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
Il 19/03/23 10:18, Robert-André Mauchin ha scritto:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am planning a soname bump of jpegxl to 0.8.1 next week Saturday the 25th.
>
> Some of you will be affected by these changes.
>
> Fedora side we have:
>
> geeqie
> gthumb
> seamonkey
> vips
>
> I can take care of these one
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am planning a soname bump of jpegxl to 0.8.1 next week Saturday the 25th.
>
> Some of you will be affected by these changes.
> RPMFusion side, the following packages are affected:
>
> libheif
> xine-lib
>
xine-lib and libheif are both fedora packages.
Hello everyone,
I am planning a soname bump of jpegxl to 0.8.1 next week Saturday the 25th.
Some of you will be affected by these changes.
Fedora side we have:
geeqie
gthumb
seamonkey
vips
I can take care of these one as a PP in a side tag
RPMFusion side, the following packages are
Le ven. 3 déc. 2021 à 17:17, Sérgio Basto a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 15:36 +, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did
> > the buildroot go through?
> > (This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain
> > about
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 15:36 +, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did
> the buildroot go through?
> (This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain
> about here, of course.)
yes , buildroot go through , rpmfusion packages
F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did the
buildroot go through?
(This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain about here, of
course.)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
Am Sonntag, dem 21.11.2021 um 15:40 -0500 schrieb Scott Talbert:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none
yikes
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, 20:40 Scott Talbert, wrote:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the
Hi @eclipseo,
Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
2021-11-21 20:20:51
Package resolution failed
Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64
17 matches
Mail list logo
