desktop July 2014

desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

40 participants
21 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

List of Qt/Qt5 packages for Fedora WS
by Lukáš Tinkl 29 Aug '14

29 Aug '14

Hi, based on request of cschaller, I'm sending the proposed list of Qt/Qt5 packages to be included in Fedora Workstation: qt qt-x11 qt-settings qt5-qtbase qt5-qtimageformats qt5-qtsvg qt5-qtx11extras qt5-qtxmlpatterns qt5-qtdeclarative qt5-qtquickcontrols qt5-qtdoc qt5-qtconnectivity qt5-qtmultimedia qt5-qtgraphicaleffects (you can see the dep chain of qt5 packages here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KDE_updates) -- Lukáš Tinkl <ltinkl(a)redhat.com> Senior Software Engineer - KDE desktop team, Brno KDE developer <lukas(a)kde.org> Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

35 104

Gnome 3.14 copr on F20
by Ankur Sinha 22 Aug '14

22 Aug '14

Hi, I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to try out the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there seem to be some breakages: dnf --refresh --best update gives me: Error: nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed Omitting the --best flag doesn't work either. It wants to reinstall evolution-data-server and errors out saying: Error: Transaction check error: package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed I was on the 3.12 copr already. Thanks for putting up the new copr! -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

6 18

Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work
by Chris Murphy 16 Aug '14

16 Aug '14

This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below. I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide. The WorkstationTechnical Spec says: "One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework." 1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)? 1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken? 2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI? 3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable? 4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be? The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful. References: "grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal" https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704 Thanks, Chris Murphy

9 22

Enable "Solarized" color schemes by default for Workstation
by Ryan Lerch 01 Aug '14

01 Aug '14

I recently blogged on the Fedora Magazine about the awesome addition of the Solarized colour schemes in GEdit and GNOME-terminal in workstation [1]. And a commenter on that post asked the question: why not make it default? Since terminal ships with the dark GTK theme turned on, we could set the default color scheme there to Solarized Dark, and for gedit (that uses the light GTK theme by default), enable Solarized Light by default. cheers, ryanlerch [1] - http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-21-will-feature-solarized-color-schemes-in…

5 7

BtrFS in Workstation features
by Matthew Garrett 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

Do we have any pending Workstation features that are preconditioned on btrfs being usable? My understanding is that there's now nobody at Red Hat working on the kernel code, so I'm a bit concerned that we could end up in a situation where features are blocked indefinitely waiting for an upstream with little interest in desktop functionality. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org

2 1

NetworkManager captive portal detection by default in Workstation
by Elad Alfassa 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

Hi. I just realized we have a NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora package. Installing this package will enable NetworkManager captive portal detection by default, which allows improving user experience when connecting to a captive portal. We should install this by default on Workstation. Any objections? -- -Elad Alfassa.

4 7

Re: New Fedora 22 Change Proposal: Fedora Atomic
by Chris Murphy 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =) > > I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more > appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal > installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the > clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server > personally) > > I started a Change page here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server > > Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated. Is the eventual idea that Fedora Atomic will be a separate product, or will it be a sub-product/variant of Server (or Server and Cloud) that merely differs in how it gets updated? Where does this leave the Roller Derby project? Does it merge with Fedora Atomic, or does it go away, or does it leverage a dnf plug-in approach in contrast to an rpm-ostree approach? Where does this leave Workstation? Its PRD lists a "Better upgrade/rollback control" requirement. And its tech spec says "gnome-software will use PackageKit with the hawkey backend". Since Server PRD and TC don't have an equivalent to this, it's curious that the one project explicitly intended to do what the Workstation PRD requires, is moving under the Server umbrella. Chris Murphy

2 1

Introduction, Documenting Workstation
by Pete Travis 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I'm acquainted with many of you already, but an introduction seems fitting anyway. I've been involved with the project for a few years now, primarily on the Docs team but also some light packaging and lately light infrastructure things. I live in Montana, US, where the population density is almost as low as the temperature. I work for a small government agency doing user and systems support. Why should you care? Well, the Docs team reached a decision this last weekend to proactively work with the Product WGs to assess documentation needs. I volunteered to liaison with the Workstation team. As we approach the release cycle, I'd like everyone to keep documentation in mind and the discussion open about not only implementation, but how to represent that implementation to the users. An undocumented feature isn't featured :) I'm looking forward to working with everyone, perhaps saying hello at the next meeting - there are meetings, right? - and developing a presentation of the Workstation Product that shows off the capabilities and character of your work. - -- - -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize(a)fedoraproject.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTNW1PAAoJEL1wZM0+jj2Zos4H/37WaPQMRumzi766cXv6x3mb ADJuFmZ+mZwosTynurCAKG5p8PczOHKhRrZNslf9nFNx4dczc94QJFlO7hPOq3Mr WOzkSn6pUXppukAd6UxX7qAjtrNomYCM8kDlmyK+ArZmVbo78O2IppeSwZk4R/tJ ILnktcYl4sXJjlOrA28X5uiZ0dvreuZPBT+UsiDZHVvFBQfaYqjUKIioW/R4wQYp FoFvLbXe2XCn609LuHl0TcEP9DIwd2ShKROqw2fhXXSPe4jWWwkm0+FktwEKAt46 DqKBpIZeeIIZfiKXRPS6CCGNOULboepDKj+7RfqmtrjUIqdPQZ4ZP+Hdr1vSC3M= =G3EO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Removing Bloat from the next Live CD (Desktop)
by quickbooks office 13 Jul '14

13 Jul '14

PS> I Posted this to the devel mailing list a while back and was told to post here instead; --------------- Removing Bloat from the next Live CD (Desktop) : I have noticed alot of packages are included in the Live CD which are not really used by users who only speak English. I think it really makes sense to split the Live CD into 2 versions. The default version will be for English only. The second Live CD (not the default) will be English + international languages support. ============= Here are the packages which I believe can be removed without any adverse effects: ibus ibus-chewing ibus-gtk2 ibus-gtk3 ibus-hangul ibus-kkc ibus-libpinyin ibus-m17n ibus-rawcode ibus-setup ibus-wayland libchewing libpinyin libpinyin-data opencc lohit-assamese-fonts lohit-bengali-fonts lohit-devanagari-fonts lohit-gujarati-fonts lohit-kannada-fonts lohit-malayalam-fonts lohit-oriya-fonts lohit-punjabi-fonts lohit-tamil-fonts lohit-telugu-fonts jomolhari-fonts vlgothic-fonts cjkuni-uming-fonts wqy-zenhei-fonts thai-scalable-fonts-common thai-scalable-waree-fonts smc-fonts-common smc-meera-fonts sil-abyssinica-fonts sil-mingzat-fonts sil-nuosu-fonts sil-padauk-fonts nhn-nanum-fonts-common nhn-nanum-gothic-fonts paratype-pt-sans-fonts google-noto-sans-lisu-fonts google-noto-sans-mandaic-fonts google-noto-sans-meeteimayek-fonts google-noto-sans-tagalog-fonts google-noto-sans-tai-tham-fonts google-noto-sans-tai-viet-fonts khmeros-base-fonts lklug-fonts paktype-naqsh-fonts tabish-eeyek-fonts If you know a package I may have missed above please let me know. Thanks.

4 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

desktop July 2014