test August 2011

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

117 participants
334 discussions

NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary drivers? In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it says: "2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)." So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If it's a GPL thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at least give the option to the user? Thanks, -- David St.Clair dstclair(a)cs.wcu.edu

10 20

Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X and run mouse-test, then restart. Any ideas? Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing happens, the mouse goes crazy. ???

8 7

Re: digikam and kipi-plugins?
by Rex Dieter 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Per Bothner wrote: > The Rawhide version of digikam is the very latest (0.10.0-rc1), > but it fails to find any of the "Kipi plugins", even though I've > installed the kipi-plugins package. This might be an upstream > issue, since 0.10.0 is pretty bleeding edge and the kipi-plugins > may even more bleeding-edge. Gwenview does seem to be see the > plugins, so I'm wondering if there is there might be a > Fedora-specific problem before I complain upstream ... The f10 builds seem to work fine for me (finding the plugins), so perhaps this is rawhide-specific? To be clear, digikam's Settings -> configure digikam -> Kipi Plugins is empty? -- Rex

2 1

Re: rawhide report: 20050419 changes
by Ray Strode 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Hi, > Will yelp in FC4 be able to search and display man/info pages Yea, man and info pages work for me. --Ray

2 2

Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Since the latest xorg-X11 upgrade I receive the already mentioned XKB error and the mouse wheel is not working anymore. Has anybody seen this behavior? Regards Chris

3 3

Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote: > > > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. : > > > > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down. > > > > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the logs. > > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected. > > You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it: > > Can you ping the server? > What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? > Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)? I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running. Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.

7 9

[Fedora QA] #228: SOPs for Everything
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#228: SOPs for Everything ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- We should have...SOPs for Everything! This is a meta-ticket with the aim of identifying, well, everything QA does, and making sure they all have SOPs. For a start, I'm going to do a survey of the QA calendar for a release, and check whether we have an SOP for each task. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/228> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #237: tests to verify that torrents and mirrors contain signed checksum files
by fedora-badges 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

#237: tests to verify that torrents and mirrors contain signed checksum files ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: robatino | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- In many of the last several releases (11, 13, 14, and now 16), at least some of the Alpha or Beta torrents contain only unsigned checksum files. This would be easy to prevent by examining the .torrent files, which contain file sizes (signing a checksum file adds about 1K to the size). Unfortunately, at present these are not made available for testing prior to being posted on http://torrent.fedoraproject.org , and when the problem is pointed out, no matter how quickly, one is told that the torrent can't be replaced since people are already downloading it. This makes it important to catch the problem in advance. Many (but not all) of the torrent files for the last several releases are still available at http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/ and http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/spins/ , and can be examined for example with gtorrentviewer. I have not checked any older than 11, and not all the ones after that are available, so the above list of affected releases is probably incomplete. A less serious issue is when the checksum files get signed more than once. For example, the checksum files for F15 Final install discs were signed twice, first for the torrents and again for the mirrors - see http://robatino.fedorapeople.org/checksums/15-Final/Fedora/ . The checksums are identical, and both signatures are valid, but still, it shouldn't happen. Looking at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Engineering_Release_Tickets , it says that for Alpha and Beta, the torrents should be staged before the mirrors, but the reverse for Final. I've asked why on #fedora-releng but gotten no response yet. It says nothing about signing the checksum files, though the linked page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stage_final_release_for_mirrors (under the section "Final") mentions it. This may explain why Alpha and Beta torrents are much less likely to have signed files. If possible, it would be nice for the order (torrents vs. mirrors) to be the same for all three, and in any case, the checksum files should be signed once and then used for both torrents and mirrors. None of this is currently documented. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/237> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 16

[Fedora QA] #227: Document SOP for acceptance test event
by fedora-badges 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

#227: Document SOP for acceptance test event -------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: twu Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- So far we don't have a sop document for acceptance test events, which is needed to clarify the procedure, see other sops: * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:QA_SOPs Assign this task to twu as he's been leading this event. Feel free to take if anyone is interested in this. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/227> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 21

[Fedora QA] #221: Reduce Blocker Bug Review Meeting Length
by fedora-badges 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

#221: Reduce Blocker Bug Review Meeting Length -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: tflink | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16 Component: Trac | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- == Description == While the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting blocker bug review meetings] are very much a necessary thing, they have a tendency to be long, tedious and not a whole lot of fun for those involved. During the Fedora 15 retrospective, there was a request to streamline the process in order to distribute the workload and avoid more 4+ hour meetings. Any proposals on how to reduce the length of the meetings while maintaining their utility would be much appreciated. == Proposals == Pending discussion in comments and email -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/221> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 15

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test August 2011