desktop August 2014

desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org

57 participants
40 discussions

Fedora 21 Alpha validation test work
by Adam Williamson 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Hi, folks. So, we're scheduled for Alpha TC1 tomorrow. We had a nice happy co-operative plan where QA and the WGs would collaborate on revising the release validation test process for Fedora.next... ...which, well, didn't really happen. As of this morning we were nowhere near having a viable validation process. So I went for plan B: I spent today more or less pulling the entire thing out of my ass. It's a bit rough around the edges, but I think we more or less have something workable now. I have skipped the draft stage for a lot of documents just in the interest of having something vaguely workable in time for TC1; of course, the pages can be revised as much as necessary as we work with them. It's a bit hard to remember everything I've done, but we now have a draft Alpha Release Criteria page which should cover all release-blocking media, which for now I'm assuming includes the Workstation live media, Server minimal and offline install media, Cloud and ARM disk images, and possibly some kind of generic network install image. That draft is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_F21_Alpha_criteria and is based on the stuff from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_workstation_release_crit… and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Cloud_Alpha_Release… , plus some adjustments to the templates that handle the preamble. We have a new validation matrix, for Server product-specific tests: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Server_validation_results_template The Desktop matrix has been adjusted to cover - not quite elegantly, but at least cover - both the Workstation product and the KDE spin: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_results_template The Base matrix has been extended to add a couple of new test cases that came out of the Product criteria drafting process, but actually aren't really product specific, and has had its columns adjusted to be product-y: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_results_template The installation matrix has similarly had a couple of new criteria wedged in, but much more importantly, I ripped the netinst, DVD and live image 'sanity test' sections and replaced them with an ARM-style table where a single 'generic' test case is run against several images on several platforms - that's the "Default boot and install" section, so please cast an eye over it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_21_Install_Results_Template and I made a small change to the release validation test event SOP to list the server matrix as one to create: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Release_Validation_Test_Event Here are links to all (I think) of the new test cases I had to write as I went along: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_default_install https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kickstart_user_creation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_service_manipulation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_selinux https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Server_firewall_default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kickstart_firewall https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Server_cockpit_default The following test cases already existed, but are newly included in the release validation process (they were written for test days): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_FreeIPA_realmd_join https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_realmd_join_kickstart https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_realmd_join_server There are still quite a few i's to dot and t's to cross. There are some release criteria and test cases that explicitly reference 'the DVD' image that will need to be adjusted. We need to apply the 'associated release criterion' template to all the new test cases, and probably clean up some categorizations. Various other process documentation pages may need to be updated, we'll have to check through all of them. But I think now we at least have the broad strokes of what's needed for .next validation testing. All feedback on the above changes is of course welcome! Please do cast your eye over and point out anything I missed, anything that looks silly, any possible improvements and so on. Remember, though, this is really *test process* design: we're not actually doing product design here, if you think there are issues with the Fedora.next changes themselves, that goes to the WGs or FESCo. As far as this work is concerned, we're just trying to test the new Products as they're designed (all of the above is based off of the Product PRDs and tech specs). I'll take time tomorrow to do some polishing, and of course look at any and all feedback on the stuff I did today. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

3 3

Release notes have a launcher - maybe we should remove that
by Elad Alfassa 11 Sep '14

11 Sep '14

Hello all. As you may know, we ship a launcher called "Release Notes" in our default install. During the F18 Launcher Purge[1] Allan asked the docs team to remove it from the default install, but his request was rejected[2]. But now we have guidelines[3], and the guidelines state: * An "app" is an application as defined by the GNOME 3 HIG[4] * An app launcher SHOULD Launch software that is an actual app - see the GNOME 3 HIG for the exact definition And the release notes, well, are not an app (per the definition in the GNOME 3 HIG). Moreover, I don't really think users expect to find release notes inside the OS itself - no other OS does that. We can link to the release notes in our download page, our help page on the website (which will be linked from start.fpo once I finish implementing the new designs we got), and a bookmark in Firefox (pointing to a local copy of the release notes) - so the release notes won't exactly be invisible or inaccessible. We could also go the extra step (of craziness) and copy the release note PDF into the liveuser's Document directory (in the kickstart), where it will be indexed by tracker and thus accessible via documents and people who search for "release notes" in the shell would be able to find it (why would they do that? I don't know). It's possible, but for me it seems extremely crazy and unnecessary. While I'm aware what I'm suggesting here might be a little bit controversial, I do think it is something which we should consider. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Design/F18_Launcher_Purge [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846316 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Elad/Draft_app_guidelines [4] https://people.gnome.org/~tobiasmue/hig3/application-basics.html -- -Elad Alfassa.

20 46

Image viewer applications
by Michael Catanzaro 05 Sep '14

05 Sep '14

Hi all, In Fedora 20, Shotwell was the default image viewer and no other image viewer was installed. In F21 Shotwell is still the default, but now Image Viewer (eog) is installed as well. This doesn't make any sense since Image Viewer serves no purpose unless it's the default image handler, whereas Shotwell is more useful for previewing and organizing a collection of photos. We've also recently noticed that gthumb looks like a nice alternative to Shotwell. I propose we do one of the following: * Replace Shotwell with gthumb, and remove Image Viewer. * Replace Shotwell with gthumb, but keep Image Viewer as the default image viewer. * Remove Shotwell, and keep Image Viewer as the only image viewer. Opinions welcome. You might notice that I'm gunning for Shotwell here. It looks a lot older than gthumb, and seems to have mostly the same functionality. (Make sure to check out gthumb in F21, not F20. You wouldn't know they were the same app due to the huge changes.) Image Viewer, in contrast, is a simple app for just previewing images, which is a different purpose, but I think gthumb can also serve this purpose just as well while looking nicer. There are other options, of course, which I am less fond of: * Remove Image Viewer. (Shotwell remains.) * Make Image Viewer the default image viewer. (Shotwell remains.) Either of these would be more sensible than keeping Image Viewer if it is not the default image viewer. GNOME Photos is notably not one of the apps we're considering. We've been told it's not ready yet. Michael

16 51

IMPORTANT (release blocker): Status of Workstation network install
by Adam Williamson 04 Sep '14

04 Sep '14

Hi, folks! We did the release blocker bug review meeting today, and one of the bugs that came up for discussion was this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524 The question of whether this bug is a release blocker comes down pretty clearly to the status of the Workstation network install image. That is, the image is clearly busted, so if we care about that image, we should consider the bug a release blocker. However, the question of whether the Workstation network install image should be considered 'supported' / 'release-blocking' / whatever does not appear to be settled. As I noted in my comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524#c2 as Workstation was originally designed it seemed clear that the answer was "no, we don't care about netinst", but things seem to have changed somewhat since then, and kalev seemed fairly receptive to blocking on Workstation netinst for F21: <kalev> adamw: so, my take on this is that I would really like to have a single installation media for Workstation, only the live USB / dvd <kalev> but I also do understand that in some environments, the PXE boot and netinstall are necessary, especially corporate installations <kalev> what I'm envisioning in the future is that we should have a single netinstall for the whole of Fedora, where one could select server or workstation <kalev> but that's not the future we are in right now; I'll try to lobby to make this happen for F22 <kalev> but for F21, I think we'll just have to make do with what we have and make the workstation-specific netinstall work <kalev> so I don't mind having it as a blocking bug I thought it'd be best to have a clear and publicly-recorded consensus on this, though, and ask the Workstation WG to amend the tech spec if appropriate. So: is it the case as kalev suggests that for F21 at least the Workstation network install image should be considered 'release blocking', i.e. a supported medium of the Workstation product? If so, can the tech spec be updated to reflect that? Once there's a clear answer to this question, we'll update the release criteria appropriately and determine the blocker status of the bug. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

7 6

Removing firewall-config from the default install of Fedora Workstation
by Elad Alfassa 04 Sep '14

04 Sep '14

Hello. I propose we remove firewall-config (the graphical firewall configuration utility) from the default install of Fedora Workstation. Rationale: * The default Workstation zone file allows incoming connection to non-root ports. This means most of the common usecases will "just work" out of the box. Thus, most users will not need to touch their Firewall settings. * People who do need it will be able to install it from GNOME Software quite easily. Just search for "Firewall". There will be no confusion as this is the only firewall configuration tool shown in GNOME Software. * In general, we should avoid having app launchers for things that are configuration utilities in the default install. Unless there's major objection to this change in the following few days, I'll remove it from the gnome-desktop group in comps. Thanks, -- -Elad Alfassa.

15 52

F21 Workstation Hardware Requirements
by Pete Travis 03 Sep '14

03 Sep '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm working on the release notes here - should there be any special hardware recommendations for Workstation? The 'requirements[1]' drafted are deliberately open-ended, because Fedora can be stripped down or built up to run *something* on most any modern machine. Workstation is a specific thing though, and while LLVMpipe can [often?] get gnome-shell running, it isn't a great experience. Maybe not the UX context you want Workstation to be used in. Thoughts? [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/20/html/Release_Notes/sect-Relea… - -- - -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize(a)fedoraproject.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAgMgAAoJEL1wZM0+jj2Z8jEH/1kIwnfQywb1w8qIBHcA8NyO /Q8oW9Db+RQ6hOO9hMOUrE+c8TCYXIwjwyc/LBJ5PqsxZuQ5yKvISKfA2kp1S/Kz ATI9QqrUU4i10nYwINOsijA74lRz4qdgKd8ZjRvH4u0hXCEnuRNwt2v6wc/NwjNU 0tBNGbMv9I81DPCoMYZkmgw+A5qA4bMK/FL7n+EslyBiiQWVTTQfEIfEMsR6Q4KA KaHw9A7bJ8pVC/wwnCmDy591ZntdG1ZdCkYYE3dcG2TqWatKruUbeKOh4yhXgbcE nHNx5oUUu43kT8NN5M5eFsHQIJY0ncyR7WAM42HLlQye5I+hoyDLF14E49YObSw= =eGAz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

14 23

Gnome 3.14 on a touch screen tablet
by Ankur Sinha 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Hi, I managed to get my hands on a touch screen tablet. It's an Asus something (fpaste --sysinfo here[1]). It came with windows 8 preinstalled, so I assume it supports multitouch. I installed Gnome 3.14 from one of the nightly images to see how well it works on it. It's now completely up to date with the F21 package set. Here are my findings (I'll file bugs when I find time. I'll also update the test page when I've filed my bugs): 1. The on screen keyboard doesn't automatically come up on the tablet. Is there a way to check if the system has a connected keyboard and bring it up if one isn't found? I tapped on "Install Fedora" and when I had to type in anaconda, the keyboard didn't come up. I had to quit anaconda, go to settings, enable accessibility and the keyboard and then redo anaconda. 2. Not all the gestures listed here work for me[2]. The page was listed here on the test day page: a. tapping works b. press and hold worked in the dash, but it didn't bring up the right click menu in nautilus. I haven't figured out how to bring it up yet. c. drag for scrolling works d. pinch to zoom didn't work in maps/shotwell. Worked in eog. e. double tap didn't work in eog either f. three finger pinch didn't bring up overview g. four finger drag didn't switch workspaces h. finger hold and tab didn't bring up the window switcher 3. The on screen keyboard doesn't work too well. At the moment, each key I press is typed in twice somehow - even after rebooting. I had to plug in a usb keyboard to complete the g-i-s configuration. 4. The on screen keyboard doesn't have arrow keys like any other touch keyboard. This makes using the terminal just a little difficult since you can't access the previous command that easily. Similarly, it doesn't have ctrl alt etc., so restarting the shell if it gets stuck etc. or bringing up the "looking glass" is a little difficult without a usb keyboard. These aren't usual use cases, but maybe something like a "developer mode" could enable these? 5. The tablet also had a stylus which we managed to lose. It therefore recognises it as a wacom tablet. I clicked on "calibrate" and it brought up a screen with circles in the centre and a cross hair. I couldn't figure out how to get out of it. No gesture worked, not even alt f4 from the USB keyboard. A "cancel" button somewhere would be nice. Also some instructions on what one is supposed to do would help. I think you're supposed to point the stylus at the cross hair, but I'm only guessing here. I have this tablet for another two weeks, and I'll be happy to test out stuff if any one wants me to. [1] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/129606/14093240/ [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/Gestures [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Gesture_Support -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

3 5

Fedora workstation: what do we want installed by default?
by Elad Alfassa 01 Sep '14

01 Sep '14

Hey! Few questions regarding our default offering: 1) Why is icedtea-web installed by default? I really don't think a java browser plugin is something we want by default. Software makes it very easy to install it for those who need it. 2) Do we want to replace Rhythmbox with gnome-music? 3) Do we really need a firewall configuration UI? Related: Can we hide nm-connection-editor from the application view? It's not an app. See upstream bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682456 -- -Elad Alfassa.

8 16

Default "Favorite Apps"
by Elad Alfassa 29 Aug '14

29 Aug '14

Hi all. We have a lot of "favorite" (ie. pinned to the sidebar in the overview) apps. The current list is: Firefox, Evolution, Empathy, Rhytmbox, Shotwell, LibreOffice Writer, Nautilus, Documents and Software. On the live media we also have the installer launcher pinned on that list. I think this is too much. On small screens (laptops, vms) having so many launchers there causes their icons to be scaled down a lot. I understand the idea behind default favorites is "apps we want the user to try", but this is just too much. I don't think we should have more than 4 apps there. So, I suggest removing some items from that list, and have a much smaller one, what about: Firefox, Evolution, Nautilus, Documents, Software (and of course the installer when running on Live) Does this make more sense? If so, I'll submit a patch to make this change :) It's easy for us to change that list since we already patch it in Fedora to replace Epiphany with Firefox. -- -Elad Alfassa.

4 6

Current High Contrast Icon Status in Workstation
by Elad Alfassa 29 Aug '14

29 Aug '14

Hello everyone. In the approved apps and launcher guidelines we say launchers that are installed by default must have matching high contrast launchers. This is needed for obvious accessibility reasons. The following is a list of applications which lack high contrast icons in Workstation right now. In accordance to this policy, we need to fix their icons. * nm-connection-editor - shows red circle instead of high contrast icon. Since nm-connection-editor's launcher should be hidden in GNOME now (see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682456) all we need to do to "fix" this is pull this patch from the upstream's master branch to Fedora's NetworkManager package. * gnome-sound-recorder - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=734423 * SELinux Troubleshooter - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130794 * firewall-config - on this list because WG didn't decide its fate yet, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130795 * simple-scan - gnome-themes-standard issue https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735455 * gnome-maps - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707287 * DevAssistant - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132193 * gnome-weather - fixed in upstream's master, pending release * anaconda - I didn't file a bug. I don't know if I should. Is it expected of people who need high contrast UI to set it before the installation? If so, I will file this. This list is here for your information. Most of these issues are tracked & prioritized upstream, and require little to no effort on our side. Thanks, -- -Elad Alfassa.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

desktop August 2014