openh264 for fedora-46 (new rawhide)

kevin commented

2026-08-11 23:59:35 +00:00

Owner

We need to do https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/releng_misc_guide/sop_openh264/ for fedora-46 (new rawhide) openh264.

I've done a build and it's in the f46-openh264 tag and should be signed by the f46 key, so it should be ready for that sop.

Also, note, we should try and fix: #12473

as part of this. that means we need to run the koji dist-repo with '--multilib=CONFIG' but I am not sure what CONFIG is, so we may need to test this in staging. We want mozilla-openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.i686.rpm and openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.i686.rpm to be in the x86_64 repo it makes.

We need to do https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/releng_misc_guide/sop_openh264/ for fedora-46 (new rawhide) openh264. I've done a build and it's in the f46-openh264 tag and should be signed by the f46 key, so it should be ready for that sop. Also, note, we should try and fix: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/12473 as part of this. that means we need to run the koji dist-repo with '--multilib=CONFIG' but I am not sure what CONFIG is, so we may need to test this in staging. We want mozilla-openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.i686.rpm and openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.i686.rpm to be in the x86_64 repo it makes.

patrikp added the

labels

2026-08-12 17:31:38 +00:00

patrikp self-assigned this

2026-08-12 17:31:45 +00:00

patrikp added this to the Sprint ( 2026-08-10 to 2026-08-23 ) project

2026-08-12 17:31:51 +00:00

adamwill commented

2026-08-13 06:58:20 +00:00

Member

Also remember to update mirrormanager afterwards so that fedora-cisco-openh264-rawhide points to https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46 , I guess.

adamwill referenced this issue from a commit

2026-08-13 06:59:17 +00:00

disable gpgcheck on openh264 repo for rawhide

jnsamyak commented

2026-08-13 10:21:22 +00:00

Owner

@adamwill, the mirror manager redirects should be set to it already; we just need to have these created.

UPDATE repository_redirect SET to_repo = regexp_replace(to_repo, '-45$', '-46') WHERE from_repo ILIKE '%openh264%';

@adamwill, the mirror manager redirects should be set to it already; we just need to have these created. ``` UPDATE repository_redirect SET to_repo = regexp_replace(to_repo, '-45$', '-46') WHERE from_repo ILIKE '%openh264%'; ```

kevin commented

2026-08-13 16:46:06 +00:00

Author

Owner

I manually changed the openh264 redirect to use the f45 repo.

update repository_redirect set to_repo = 'fedora-cisco-openh264-45' where from_repo = 'fedora-cisco-openh264-rawhide';

With the idea that having a repo that resolves, but is not signed correctly is better than a repo that doesn't exist.

Once that repo does exist we will need to change it to the 46 one.

I manually changed the openh264 redirect to use the f45 repo. update repository_redirect set to_repo = 'fedora-cisco-openh264-45' where from_repo = 'fedora-cisco-openh264-rawhide'; With the idea that having a repo that resolves, but is not signed correctly is better than a repo that doesn't exist. Once that repo does exist we will need to change it to the 46 one.

👍 1

patrikp commented

2026-08-13 19:47:40 +00:00

Member

Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using koji dist-repo (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply.

/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46 directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects?

Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using `koji dist-repo` (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply. `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46` directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects?

kevin commented

2026-08-13 21:30:59 +00:00

Author

Owner

@patrikp wrote in #13466 (comment):

Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using koji dist-repo (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply.

I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that?
(If you don't have it I can try and find it)

/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46 directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects?

Well, it's all down to which is better:

a) the repo points to something that doesn't exist yet and the client gets a 404 error
or
b) the repo points to the older one that exists fine, but has packages signed by the old key and the client may get a key error

I am not sure which is better in the end. ;( Perhaps @adamwill could weigh in? which is less bad for openqa?

@patrikp wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13466#issuecomment-1338839: > Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using `koji dist-repo` (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply. I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that? (If you don't have it I can try and find it) > `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46` directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects? Well, it's all down to which is better: a) the repo points to something that doesn't exist yet and the client gets a 404 error or b) the repo points to the older one that exists fine, but has packages signed by the old key and the client may get a key error I am not sure which is better in the end. ;( Perhaps @adamwill could weigh in? which is less bad for openqa?

patrikp commented

2026-08-14 08:29:08 +00:00

Member

I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that?
(If you don't have it I can try and find it)

You are correct. We already have the link and the workflow should be:
Upload the things, THEN send an email to Cisco to let them know.
The SOP is slightly outdated so I'll update it to reflect this.

I was able to find the link, used it to upload the tarball and list, and sent a reply to the original email I sent to let them know.

> I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that? (If you don't have it I can try and find it) You are correct. We already have the link and the workflow should be: Upload the things, THEN send an email to Cisco to let them know. The SOP is slightly outdated so I'll update it to reflect this. I was able to find the link, used it to upload the tarball and list, and sent a reply to the original email I sent to let them know.

kevin commented

2026-08-14 16:41:02 +00:00

Author

Owner

Thanks. (Note that I am not on that list, so do let me/us know what they say).

👍 1

adamwill commented

2026-08-16 16:18:54 +00:00

Member

@kevin wrote in #13466 (comment):

@patrikp wrote in #13466 (comment):

Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using koji dist-repo (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply.

I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that? (If you don't have it I can try and find it)

/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46 directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects?

Well, it's all down to which is better:

a) the repo points to something that doesn't exist yet and the client gets a 404 error or b) the repo points to the older one that exists fine, but has packages signed by the old key and the client may get a key error

I am not sure which is better in the end. ;( Perhaps @adamwill could weigh in? which is less bad for openqa?

they're equally bad, I think. anything that is going to lead to an error is bad. an empty repo would be fine for openqa but maybe not other cases?

@kevin wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13466#issuecomment-1338899: > @patrikp wrote in #13466 (comment): > > > Here is how things stand. I created the F46 RPMs using `koji dist-repo` (albeit for now not the 32 version). I have the tarball containing the RPMs ready. I sent an email to Cisco requesting an upload link, waiting for a reply. > > I thought we could use the existing link they gave us before over? can you try uploading with that? (If you don't have it I can try and find it) > > > `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46` directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. Or is anything else required for the redirects? > > Well, it's all down to which is better: > > a) the repo points to something that doesn't exist yet and the client gets a 404 error or b) the repo points to the older one that exists fine, but has packages signed by the old key and the client may get a key error > > I am not sure which is better in the end. ;( Perhaps @adamwill could weigh in? which is less bad for openqa? they're equally bad, I think. anything that is going to lead to an error is bad. an empty repo would be fine for openqa but maybe not other cases?

patrikp commented

2026-08-17 16:39:02 +00:00

Member

@kevin Just to let you know, I received an email from Benzheng Zhang saying he has the RPMs and will upload them "later". I'll make a mental note to CC you in such communication, my oversight, sorry.

I believe the command with which we can verify would be:
$ curl -I http://ciscobinary.openh264.org/openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.x86_64.rpm
Which should return:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
But as of right now returns:
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden

Or is there a better way?

@kevin Just to let you know, I received an email from Benzheng Zhang saying he has the RPMs and will upload them "later". I'll make a mental note to CC you in such communication, my oversight, sorry. I believe the command with which we can verify would be: `$ curl -I http://ciscobinary.openh264.org/openh264-2.6.0-4.fc46.x86_64.rpm` Which should return: `HTTP/1.1 200 OK` But as of right now returns: `HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden` Or is there a better way?

kevin commented

2026-08-18 19:42:50 +00:00

Author

Owner

Yep. That sounds right. Or a note back from them that the packages are there.

Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong.

Yep. That sounds right. Or a note back from them that the packages are there. Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong.

👍 1

patrikp commented

2026-08-19 17:12:57 +00:00

Member

So far nothing. I'll wait until tomorrow morning my time and if the RPMs are not published I'll send a gentle reminder email asking them to please let us know once they are published.

In the meanwhile, here's a slight touch-up of the SOP so that it now mentions that the upload link is in Bitwarden, where Samyak kindly uploaded it:
infra/docs#540

So far nothing. I'll wait until tomorrow morning my time and if the RPMs are not published I'll send a gentle reminder email asking them to please let us know once they are published. In the meanwhile, here's a slight touch-up of the SOP so that it now mentions that the upload link is in Bitwarden, where Samyak kindly uploaded it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/docs/pulls/540

patrikp commented

2026-08-20 08:25:06 +00:00

Member

I sent the gentle reminder email. 👍

patrikp commented

2026-08-21 14:42:30 +00:00

Member

Unfortunately no answer as of yet, still waiting on Cisco.

patrikp modified the project from Sprint ( 2026-08-10 to 2026-08-23 ) to Sprint ( 2026-08-24 to 2026-09-06 )

2026-08-24 14:31:28 +00:00

gotmax23 commented

2026-08-25 16:47:33 +00:00

Member

Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong.

Can we do this now for F46 until Cisco sets things up? I was trying to branch the builds.sr.ht Fedora image, but the build is failing because dnf upgrade is broken by this (https://builds.sr.ht/~gotmax23/job/1866991#task-sanity-check-117).

> Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong. Can we do this now for F46 until Cisco sets things up? I was trying to branch the builds.sr.ht Fedora image, but the build is failing because `dnf upgrade` is broken by this (https://builds.sr.ht/~gotmax23/job/1866991#task-sanity-check-117).

kevin commented

2026-08-25 21:21:00 +00:00

Author

Owner

Yeah, I was sure hoping it would be up by now... but I guess if it's still not we can just move to the empty repo.

patrikp commented

2026-08-26 17:31:52 +00:00

Member

Yeah, I was sure hoping it would be up by now... but I guess if it's still not we can just move to the empty repo.

Yeah, no response as of yet. Another reminder email sent, hopefully the RPMs will be published soon...

Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong.

I agree with this approach, historically it has also taken a while to get them published. It can be assumed it'll continue being like that.

> Yeah, I was sure hoping it would be up by now... but I guess if it's still not we can just move to the empty repo. Yeah, no response as of yet. Another reminder email sent, hopefully the RPMs will be published soon... > Thinking about it more, I think at branching we should make a new empty repo for this. It would mean that things that try and install specifically openh264 wouldn't work, but the empty repo would mean there wouldn't be any 404 errors and without any packages there the signatures wouldn't be wrong. I agree with this approach, historically it has also taken a while to get them published. It can be assumed it'll continue being like that.

kevin commented

2026-08-26 21:38:46 +00:00

Author

Owner

yeah, so can you setup an empty repo? or would you like me to?

After the repo exists we need to repoint the mirrormanager alias to it.

yeah, so can you setup an empty repo? or would you like me to? After the repo exists we need to repoint the mirrormanager alias to it.

patrikp commented

2026-08-27 11:42:09 +00:00

Member

The repo already exists I believe, I created it weeks ago:

/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46 directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now.

To double check, is manually creating the directory all that is required?

As for mirrormanager, I would love to do it but I don't think I have the necessary permissions for it. Would you mind doing that part? And ideally also posting the steps so that I may add it to the SOP? (I don't see it there)

The repo already exists I believe, I created it weeks ago: > `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46` directory also now exists on sundries, empty for now, but possibly the redirects can be set now. To double check, is manually creating the directory all that is required? As for mirrormanager, I would love to do it but I don't think I have the necessary permissions for it. Would you mind doing that part? And ideally also posting the steps so that I may add it to the SOP? (I don't see it there)

adamwill commented

2026-08-27 18:32:41 +00:00

Member

An empty directory isn't an empty repo. You have to run createrepo . in it, to produce repo metadata that says 'this is an empty repo'. :D

An empty directory isn't an empty repo. You have to run `createrepo .` in it, to produce repo metadata that says 'this is an empty repo'. :D

kevin commented

2026-08-27 19:01:25 +00:00

Author

Owner

Yeah, it needs:

46/{aarch64|ppc64le|s390x|src|x86_64}/

all created and then 'createrepo_c .' run in each one to create repodata/ that tells things that it has nothing.

We probibly should generate this and then keep a copy around so we can just sync/copy it in place.

Yeah, it needs: 46/{aarch64|ppc64le|s390x|src|x86_64}/ all created and then 'createrepo_c .' run in each one to create repodata/ that tells things that it has nothing. We probibly should generate this and then keep a copy around so we can just sync/copy it in place.

adamwill referenced this issue from quality/tickets

2026-08-27 21:04:10 +00:00

Immutable Testing, Silverblue/Kinolite #933

adamwill commented

2026-08-27 21:05:14 +00:00

Member

BTW, I note the branching SOP actually expressly states to create empty repos for the new rawhide:

=== OpenH264

* Create a set of empty repositories under `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/{rawhide_next}`.

[NOTE]
====
After the mass branching is finished we will need to get a new Rawhide (F{rawhide_next}) build,
send it to Cisco, and update the empty repository with metadata once Cisco publishes the binaries.
====

...so I don't know why that was missed this time and we made an ad hoc decision to point to the f45 repo instead.

BTW, I note the branching SOP actually expressly states to create empty repos for the new rawhide: ``` === OpenH264 * Create a set of empty repositories under `/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/{rawhide_next}`. [NOTE] ==== After the mass branching is finished we will need to get a new Rawhide (F{rawhide_next}) build, send it to Cisco, and update the empty repository with metadata once Cisco publishes the binaries. ==== ``` ...so I don't know why that was missed this time and we made an ad hoc decision to point to the f45 repo instead.

adelton commented

2026-08-28 16:28:14 +00:00

To cross-link back to bugzilla, this is hopefully tracking a fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2344545.

patrikp commented

2026-08-31 11:26:34 +00:00

Member

OK, I created the relevant subdirectories and ran createrepo_c in each. On sundries01:

$ pwd
/srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264

$ ls -1 46/*
46/aarch64:
repodata

46/ppc64le:
repodata

46/s390x:
repodata

46/src:
repodata

46/x86_64:
repodata

Now we should be able to point mirrormanager at it, but as I said previously, unfortunately I don't have the necessary permissions to do that.

...so I don't know why that was missed this time and we made an ad hoc decision to point to the f45 repo instead.

Human error. Oversight on my part, as this is part of the preparation that I was responsible for, and I suppose nobody else caught my mistake. This hopefully shouldn't be an issue in the future, I've made updates to the SOP.

OK, I created the relevant subdirectories and ran createrepo_c in each. On `sundries01`: ``` $ pwd /srv/web/codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264 $ ls -1 46/* 46/aarch64: repodata 46/ppc64le: repodata 46/s390x: repodata 46/src: repodata 46/x86_64: repodata ``` Now we should be able to point mirrormanager at it, but as I said previously, unfortunately I don't have the necessary permissions to do that. > ...so I don't know why that was missed this time and we made an ad hoc decision to point to the f45 repo instead. Human error. Oversight on my part, as this is part of the preparation that I was responsible for, and I suppose nobody else caught my mistake. This hopefully shouldn't be an issue in the future, I've made updates to the SOP.

kevin commented

2026-08-31 16:50:13 +00:00

Author

Owner

Two things left:

mirrormanager needs to pick up the repo. I just forced a run to do that.
need to change the rawhide alias in mirrormanger to it (I will do this in an hour or so once mm has updated).

Two things left: 1. mirrormanager needs to pick up the repo. I just forced a run to do that. 2. need to change the rawhide alias in mirrormanger to it (I will do this in an hour or so once mm has updated).

avik commented

2026-08-31 17:35:03 +00:00

Will we ever get openh264 back? My workflows that test my code on rawhide are broken until then.

avik commented

2026-08-31 17:37:21 +00:00

Could we make the keys from Cisco Fedora 45 repository available on rawhide perhaps?

kevin commented

2026-08-31 18:49:22 +00:00

Author

Owner

Rawhide should now be pointed at the empty fedora-46 repo.

We will update it as soon as we are able.

Rawhide should now be pointed at the empty fedora-46 repo. We will update it as soon as we are able.

patrikp commented

2026-09-02 14:16:24 +00:00

Member

Good news everyone. I just received word from Cisco, the RPMs have been uploaded on their CDN. I went ahead and published the repodata on our side.

adelton commented

2026-09-02 14:32:02 +00:00

Is publishing repodata the last step, or is anything else needed? I am currently getting

$ podman run --rm -ti registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide dnf install -y openh264
Updating and loading repositories:
 Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64                                               100% |  65.6 KiB/s |  13.0 KiB |  00m00s
>>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512)  Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512)  - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512)  Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512)  - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512)  Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512)  - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512)  Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512)  - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml
>>> Usable URL not found
 Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release                       100% |   7.6 MiB/s |  21.9 MiB |  00m03s
Repositories loaded.
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: openh264
You can try to add to command line:
  --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages

Is publishing repodata the last step, or is anything else needed? I am currently getting ``` $ podman run --rm -ti registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide dnf install -y openh264 Updating and loading repositories: Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 100% | 65.6 KiB/s | 13.0 KiB | 00m00s >>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512) Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512) - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml >>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512) Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512) - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml >>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512) Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512) - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml >>> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 3006220964980fdd443673a72cbdc52ee5f417bbc62e4090a1c8bcd1bdf5c4b9239f50f40124e0625a51d69984f45f4b8d5d58fecd7470b858bc926afa141c1a(sha512) Expected: 4deebd6a3d87bd25d03ea5254eabcaee64e3f9f648b7eb26a58e329d9d54e914e0d2b1d5be3d2585ed1a68bd764e2715a1c79f5bad1dd648fef9050ddf357dc7(sha512) - https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/46/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml >>> Usable URL not found Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 100% | 7.6 MiB/s | 21.9 MiB | 00m03s Repositories loaded. Failed to resolve the transaction: No match for argument: openh264 You can try to add to command line: --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages ```

patrikp commented

2026-09-02 16:30:25 +00:00

Member

@adelton It usually takes mirrormanager a while to pick up the changes (1x a day). However, it's possible to manually force a cronjob run. This was done around half an hour ago. Could you try again and report here if you're still experiencing issues, please?

adelton commented

2026-09-02 16:41:03 +00:00

I rerun the same podman run command, still getting the same error.

I rerun the same `podman run` command, still getting the same error.

kevin commented

2026-09-02 20:13:40 +00:00

Author

Owner

So, it doesn't seem to be updating in mirrormanager.

The only theory I have is that we had a newer empty set of repos there, so when we put the one from the dist-repo from 3 weeks ago in place it didn't update because it was older? But not sure that is really the case.

@abompard @adrian

Could you all take a look?

So, it doesn't seem to be updating in mirrormanager. The only theory I have is that we had a newer empty set of repos there, so when we put the one from the dist-repo from 3 weeks ago in place it didn't update because it was older? But not sure that is really the case. @abompard @adrian Could you all take a look?

adrian commented

2026-09-05 12:00:21 +00:00

Member

The database didn't have the right checksums and the usual trick to set the ctime of the directories didn't help. What is interesting is that the wrong (probably dummy) checksums was newer than the correct checksum. I haven't verified it but it seems that adding an older repomd.xml is not supported. I have delete all the repomd.xml information for codecs/46 and now the correct information should be in the database. In about 20 minutes it should be fixed. I will check it once more in 20 minutes.

adelton commented

2026-09-05 12:02:55 +00:00

I confirm that

podman run --rm -ti registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide dnf install -y openh264

now passes for me, finding and installing openh264-0:2.6.0-4.fc46.x86_64.

I confirm that ``` podman run --rm -ti registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide dnf install -y openh264 ``` now passes for me, finding and installing `openh264-0:2.6.0-4.fc46.x86_64`.

kevin commented

2026-09-05 16:19:29 +00:00

Author

Owner

Yeah, we created the dist-repo first, then later created the empty repo. ;(
We should probibly make an empty repo in advance...

Thanks adrian!

Yeah, we created the dist-repo first, then later created the empty repo. ;( We should probibly make an empty repo in advance... Thanks adrian!

kevin closed this issue

2026-09-05 16:19:30 +00:00

patrikp commented

2026-09-06 15:59:41 +00:00

Member

Excellent, and the docs PR is merged as well now. Thanks everyone for your help.

Rows
Columns

openh264 for fedora-46 (new rawhide) #13466