test September 2017

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

28 participants
207 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: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen
by Adam Williamson 27 Apr '19

27 Apr '19

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to > > the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding > > that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they > > arose). > > > > For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing > > We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and > Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly > how to fix that thought. Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test- announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient notification? > > from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final > > criterion: > > s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe? Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing, so they got a bit conflated :) > > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing > > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers > > utilizing Xen." > > > > and change the 'milestone' for the test case - > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt - > > from Final to Optional. > > > > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks! > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is. This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing". Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

7 9

F24 beta virt-install with kickstart fails
by Jos Vos 03 Jul '18

03 Jul '18

Hi, Did anyone succeed in virt-install'ing F24 beta using kickstart (on CentOS 6 host, if that matters)? I see lots of warnings (dracut-initqueue), then the console goes into a slowly filling bar at the bottom (plymouthd!?), then I see lots of "No space left on device" errors, then a dracut emergency shell is started. The generated rdsosreport.txt contains 34284 lines... FWIW, when *not* using kickstart I can install F24 beta on the same system with virt-install fine. Thx, -- -- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204

5 7

Criteria proposal: remove media part of release notes criterion
by Adam Williamson 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Per https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/471 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221920 , it seems we no longer want to require release notes to be present on all media. For simplicity's sake, I suggest we simply remove the media section of the criterion entirely. We could I suppose require that media include some kind of pointer to the release notes, but this seems difficult in the case of e.g. cloud images. Anyone have comments, alternative proposals? Thanks! For the record, the criterion is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_ 23_Final_Release_Criteria#Release_notes : "The final branded release notes must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic release notes must be available in the release repository." I propose amending it to: "The final branded and generic release notes must be present in the release repository." -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

3 10

Beta 1.5 and Virtualbox
by Alessio Ciregia 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

I'm unable to use Fedora 27 beta 1.5 in Virtualbox: the screen (inside the VM) become black. I've not spotted this issue in previous composes. Someone is aware of this issue? Thank you. A.

8 18

'No More Alphas': wiki revision drafts
by Adam Williamson 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

Hi, folks! So I've (finally) got ready an initial round of draft changes to various wiki pages for the purpose of implementing the 'No More Alphas' Change. You can find all the drafts in the NoMoreAlphas category: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:NoMoreAlpha For each page I cloned the original text and saved it as the first edit, so you can use the 'History' tab's diff feature to see the actual changes to each page (just compare the current state to the first edit). To summarize the changes, at least as I remember them, and call out some significant choices: * Obviously, all Alpha-related points on the schedule template on the Fedora Release Life Cycle page were removed. For schedule points that were previously derived from Alpha points that got removed, I adjusted them to derive from some other still-remaining point. * My proposal for 'what do we do about release criteria / validation' is basically: the 'Fedora 27 Alpha Release Criteria' page gets renamed 'Basic Release Criteria' (note: not versioned, I don't think it should be), and we document that *all* composes - not just Beta and Final candidate composes, but also Rawhide and Branched nightlies - will be automatically tested for (and release of them gated on) compliance with them. Which is more or less what's proposed in the Change. All external references to the 'Alpha' criteria get changed to 'Basic' (e.g. this is what changed on the other criteria pages, and on the test matrix template pages). Practically speaking, we currently have automated testing for *most* of the existing Alpha criteria, but a few items aren't covered. We can choose to move these to the Beta criteria, or leave them on Basic and just accept that *actual* coverage doesn't quite meet what we aspire to. I do *NOT* propose to have any kind of blocker tracking bug for the Basic release criteria; it doesn't seem to fit in the process, there is no Alpha release to block, and we can't realistically block nightly composes on manual test results. So a tracker bug wouldn't really have any reason to exist. In the case where a violation of the Basic criteria makes it into composes despite the automated testing, it should be marked as a Beta blocker. * There is a problem with what to do about the Change schedule: our two sources for it don't actually agree on what the schedule *is*. The Changes Policy page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy - claims that the 'Completion deadline' "falls on the same day as the Alpha milestone freeze", but the Fedora Release Life Cycle page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle - claims it falls on the same day as the branch point, which is two weeks *before* the Alpha freeze. Given this inconsistency I didn't really feel confident proposing a draft for the Changes/Policy page yet; probably it'd be good for FESCo(?) as owners of the Change process to decide when they actually want the key dates of the Change process to be, In A World Without Alphas. If FESCo wants to figure that out and let me know, I can draft the changes. Please do look these over and provide any kind of feedback! Thanks. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

4 14

tracker-preferences
by Michael Schwendt 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

Package is absent from F27. How to turn off tracker now? Tracker miners running like mad as one of the first things when demonstrating a fresh install of Fedora to someone, is really bad.

5 9

Fedora 26 Beta Release Readiness Meeting on Thursday, May 25 @ 19:00 UTC
by Jan Kurik 30 Sep '17

30 Sep '17

Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting-2 for the Fedora 26 Beta Release Readiness Meeting meeting. The meeting is going to be held on Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 19:00 UTC. Please check the [1] link for your time zone. We will meet to make sure we are coordinated and ready for the Beta release of Fedora 26. Please note that this meeting is going to be held even if the release is delayed at the Go/No-Go meeting on the same day two hours earlier. You may received this message several times, but it is by purpose to open this meeting to the teams and to raise awareness, so hopefully more team representatives will come to this meeting. This meeting works best when we have representatives from all of the teams. For more information please check the [2] link. [1] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/5759/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Readiness_Meetings Thank you for your support, Regards, Jan -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

2 1

Fedora 27-20170929.n.0 compose check report
by Fedora compose checker 29 Sep '17

29 Sep '17

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Kde live x86_64 Server boot i386 Workstation live x86_64 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 7/128 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 148729 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148729 ID: 148732 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148732 ID: 148738 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148738 ID: 148759 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148759 ID: 148769 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148769 ID: 148770 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148770 ID: 148776 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148776 ID: 148778 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148778 ID: 148856 Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148856 Soft failed openQA tests: 2/128 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) ID: 148750 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148750 ID: 148768 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/148768 Passed openQA tests: 61/128 (x86_64), 17/18 (i386) Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 148 -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose

1 0

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 September 2017