Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
It's very exciting that this Wednesday(Jul 29 2009) we will perform Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test.Are you ready to join us tomorrow? During this round of test,I'd like to see all the test cases could be executed.This will help us to find more defects earlier. So testers, please don't care about priority which is defined in that result page,just select the test cases which match your test environment,execute them and add you test results.
Thanks Liam
On 07/27/2009 02:11 PM, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
F12 Alpha build for testing will come out on Jul/29/2009(today) which is based on US time,so testers from other regions please be patient with that build. Once the link for download is ready,I will notify you as soon as possible
On 07/28/2009 10:57 AM, Liam wrote:
It's very exciting that this Wednesday(Jul 29 2009) we will perform Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test.Are you ready to join us tomorrow? During this round of test,I'd like to see all the test cases could be executed.This will help us to find more defects earlier. So testers, please don't care about priority which is defined in that result page,just select the test cases which match your test environment,execute them and add you test results.
Thanks Liam
On 07/27/2009 02:11 PM, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
This test was delayed to 2009-08-06,more details, please see James Laska's mail at:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00644.html
Thanks Liam
On 07/29/2009 10:07 AM, Liam wrote:
F12 Alpha build for testing will come out on Jul/29/2009(today) which is based on US time,so testers from other regions please be patient with that build. Once the link for download is ready,I will notify you as soon as possible
On 07/28/2009 10:57 AM, Liam wrote:
It's very exciting that this Wednesday(Jul 29 2009) we will perform Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test.Are you ready to join us tomorrow? During this round of test,I'd like to see all the test cases could be executed.This will help us to find more defects earlier. So testers, please don't care about priority which is defined in that result page,just select the test cases which match your test environment,execute them and add you test results.
Thanks Liam
On 07/27/2009 02:11 PM, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first
installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation.
Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we
need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please see anaconda new features at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs
following this guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Any question,please get help from: * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net * Mailing list: fedora-test-list * Reference of ways to communicate at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Thanks Liam
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
PPC still needs to be composed, ran into some issues updating the compose host. All of x86_64 and i386 is uploaded, live images to come later.
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
More information, refer to previous mails below.
Thanks Liam
On 07/31/2009 09:34 AM, Liam wrote:
This test was delayed to 2009-08-06,more details, please see James Laska's mail at:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00644.html
Thanks Liam
On 07/29/2009 10:07 AM, Liam wrote:
F12 Alpha build for testing will come out on Jul/29/2009(today) which is based on US time,so testers from other regions please be patient with that build. Once the link for download is ready,I will notify you as soon as possible
On 07/28/2009 10:57 AM, Liam wrote:
It's very exciting that this Wednesday(Jul 29 2009) we will perform Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test.Are you ready to join us tomorrow? During this round of test,I'd like to see all the test cases could be executed.This will help us to find more defects earlier. So testers, please don't care about priority which is defined in that result page,just select the test cases which match your test environment,execute them and add you test results.
Thanks Liam
On 07/27/2009 02:11 PM, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote:
This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation test.Please see more about our test plan at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan
Thanks Liam > Greetings testers, > > As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first > installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us > on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation. > > Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we > need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please > see anaconda new features at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features > > If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select > and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki > page at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results > > After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to > corresponding place at above link. > > If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs > following this guide: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests > > Any question,please get help from: > * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net > * Mailing list: fedora-test-list > * Reference of ways to communicate at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate > > Thanks > Liam >
QA will be available during installation test,any question,please feel free to ask, 1. IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net jlaska, US time. lili, Asia-Pacific time. 2. this mailing list
On 08/04/2009 10:53 AM, Liam wrote:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
PPC still needs to be composed, ran into some issues updating the compose host. All of x86_64 and i386 is uploaded, live images to come later.
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
More information, refer to previous mails below.
Thanks Liam
On 07/31/2009 09:34 AM, Liam wrote:
This test was delayed to 2009-08-06,more details, please see James Laska's mail at:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00644.html
Thanks Liam
On 07/29/2009 10:07 AM, Liam wrote:
F12 Alpha build for testing will come out on Jul/29/2009(today) which is based on US time,so testers from other regions please be patient with that build. Once the link for download is ready,I will notify you as soon as possible
On 07/28/2009 10:57 AM, Liam wrote:
It's very exciting that this Wednesday(Jul 29 2009) we will perform Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test.Are you ready to join us tomorrow? During this round of test,I'd like to see all the test cases could be executed.This will help us to find more defects earlier. So testers, please don't care about priority which is defined in that result page,just select the test cases which match your test environment,execute them and add you test results.
Thanks Liam
On 07/27/2009 02:11 PM, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Thanks Liam
On 07/23/2009 02:32 PM, Liam wrote:
The physical media is still unavailable, I will give the download link once it is ready
On 07/22/2009 05:33 PM, Liam wrote: > This is an activity like test day,it's not a private effort.We are > considering whether use a test day slot for this alpha installation > test.Please see more about our test plan at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Install_Test_Plan > > Thanks > Liam >> Greetings testers, >> >> As planed in F12 schedule, we are going to have the first >> installation test for fedora 12 Alpha candidate builds. Please join us >> on July 29,2009 to validate F12 Alpha installation. >> >> Let's have a look at some new features of anaconda.That means we >> need to pay more attention to these features during installation. Please >> see anaconda new features at: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features >> >> If you are interested in validating candidate build,please select >> and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki >> page at: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results >> >> After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to >> corresponding place at above link. >> >> If get some defects, I encourage you to go ahead and file bugs >> following this guide: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests >> >> Any question,please get help from: >> * IRC: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net >> * Mailing list: fedora-test-list >> * Reference of ways to communicate at: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate >> >> Thanks >> Liam >>
On 08/03/2009 10:53 PM, Liam wrote:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
<snip>
Would love to participate, but Bug 499854: filedescriptor out of range in select() https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499854
is preventing any kind of install or partitioning testing for me on my, admittedly, unusual test system. Anaconda is failing at what looks like the end of storage scan. The interesting part is that Fedoras 9, 10, and 11 Alphas all installed fine and the only way I could install fedora 11 was to install 10 and then do an upgrade from the 11 install dvd. Numerous bzs have been entered and the gurus are working them.
All I am really looking for, since my test system is really a far corner case, is an installer that will let me pick an installation method even if it can't handle my configuration. Once that happens then you can be sure that anaconda code, at least the storage rewrite part, passes the robustness test.
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 12:16 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 08/03/2009 10:53 PM, Liam wrote:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
Don't you also need an install.img for the images dir, or is it not needed now, or does the cd or dvd need to be mounted and copied from there?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:06 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 12:16 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 08/03/2009 10:53 PM, Liam wrote:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
Don't you also need an install.img for the images dir, or is it not needed now, or does the cd or dvd need to be mounted and copied from there?
Er. What? These are fully built images, just like final releases (although obviously a lot less...finished). You just burn the ISO, pop it in the drive, and boot.
2009/8/3 Liam lili@redhat.com:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
PPC still needs to be composed, ran into some issues updating the compose host. All of x86_64 and i386 is uploaded, live images to come later.
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
More information, refer to previous mails below.
Thanks Liam
Do the test cases have to be performed using these cd images? Can we use the medialess install described at http://docs.fedoraproject.org/install-guide/f11/en-US/html/ap-medialess-inst..., but using the latest rawhide images, or by getting the relevant files of the iso linked above?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:14 -0500, Todd wrote:
2009/8/3 Liam lili@redhat.com:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
PPC still needs to be composed, ran into some issues updating the compose host. All of x86_64 and i386 is uploaded, live images to come later.
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
More information, refer to previous mails below.
Thanks Liam
Do the test cases have to be performed using these cd images? Can we use the medialess install described at http://docs.fedoraproject.org/install-guide/f11/en-US/html/ap-medialess-inst..., but using the latest rawhide images, or by getting the relevant files of the iso linked above?
Of course! The images are provided for cases that explicitly require media. But you are welcome to use PXE (and I do this quite a bit) to help validate other tests.
I've cleared up the language at the top of the results page to help address this question (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results#What_...).
THanks, James
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
Is using preupgrade the best way to upgrade a fedora installation?
On 8/08/2009 12:26 PM, Todd wrote:
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
Is using preupgrade the best way to upgrade a fedora installation?
i would use the DvD to upgrade a machine but thats just my opinion
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 21:26 -0500, Todd wrote:
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
Is using preupgrade the best way to upgrade a fedora installation?
Today's Rawhide is known to be basically stuffed in various interesting ways (X is entirely broken, and anaconda is entirely broken six different ways), so I'm not surprised. :) hopefully, the next rawhide compose that gets done will be better.
I've fetched
14f52e43a9bdbfa3ea228318e19e2d426938640f5c6cc9f6189ba4b6facde94d *Fedora-12-Alpha-i386-DVD.iso
with a CHECKSUM file from 2009-08-04 and tried installation from harddisk.
After pointing the installer to the images location (all still in text mode), it continues for a few seconds, then locks up hard with a black empty display when trying to change video mode. Reproducible during 2nd attempt, but with a black screen and a frozen cursor instead.
$ lspci -v|grep Rad 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO] (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller]) 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO] (Secondary) (rev 01)
Another thing I've noticed is that when choosing the keyboard layout, some strange character sequences are displayed in the top line of the text mode screen, <A1><A8>... or something like that.
On 08/08/2009 10:26 AM, Todd wrote:
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
please go ahead and file a bug against it.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Is using preupgrade the best way to upgrade a fedora installation?
I don't like this method, the network speed is a torture to me. :)
Liam
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 14:03 +0800, Liam wrote:
On 08/08/2009 10:26 AM, Todd wrote:
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
please go ahead and file a bug against it.
Actually, given the date of the email, he was likely suffering from the known breakage of X server at the time, so a bug report would not be useful.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Adam Williamsonawilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 14:03 +0800, Liam wrote:
On 08/08/2009 10:26 AM, Todd wrote:
I did the preupgrade testcase on 2 systems form F11 to Rawhide and neither went well at all.. On a x86_64 machine with nvidia graphics, the preupgrade procedure went fine, but after the upgrade, X would not start. I tried again on a 32 bit laptop with ati graphics. The display was blank during the upgrade. I just waited for the hard drive to stop for a few minutes and rebooted with CRTL-ALT-DEL. After reboot the screen was again blank.
please go ahead and file a bug against it.
Actually, given the date of the email, he was likely suffering from the known breakage of X server at the time, so a bug report would not be useful.
I filed 516283, but it was fixed when I did a yum upgrade yesterday.
-- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
----- "Liam" lili@redhat.com wrote:
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
I'm not sure how to test undocumented test cases. For example in "Image Sanity" section all 4 test cases are not documented and I don't know exactly what some of them mean. Can I find an explanation somewhere?
Thanks.
Thanks for raising these concerns Kamil! Comments below...
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:01 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- "Liam" lili@redhat.com wrote:
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
I'm not sure how to test undocumented test cases. For example in "Image Sanity" section all 4 test cases are not documented and I don't know exactly what some of them mean. Can I find an explanation somewhere?
The idea of these tests surfaced as release engineering exit criteria checkpoints during the F-11 campaign. I've added Jesse Keating to the cc list for some guidance here.
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size =
This seems a worthwhile test that we should include. I suspect this test is intended to ensure the ISO media is: * <= 700Mib for CD iso's * <= 4.7Gib for DVD iso's? <!-- needs clarification -->
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Checksums =
Unclear what the value of this test is. It's straightfoward to confirm that the ISO images posted match the provided checksums. But it's not clear
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_Repoclosure =
I believe replaces the need for an @everything package install test. The intent is to use repoclosure to identify dependency conflicts without having to go through the hastle of booting a CD/DVD and manually selecting every package for install (even still the UI doesn't expose all packages on the media kit iirc).
I suspect this test would be easier and better to run while the compose is being created. I don't know if that's possible, but if so ... perhaps we just need a place to add compose-time unit test scripts?
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts =
Same as above.
Thanks, James
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:
The idea of these tests surfaced as release engineering exit criteria checkpoints during the F-11 campaign. I've added Jesse Keating to the cc list for some guidance here.
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size =
This seems a worthwhile test that we should include. I suspect this test is intended to ensure the ISO media is: * <= 700Mib for CD iso's * <= 4.7Gib for DVD iso's? <!-- needs clarification -->
I'm still somewhat fuzzy on the DVD iso sizes myself, and it depends on how you measure the size (du, vs ls -al, vs ls -alh, vs....)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-R#Recordable_DVD_capacity_comparison seems to indicate that 4.38 gigabyte (or 4.71 in manufacturer sizes divided by 1K rather than 1024) is the upper limit. So however we want to measure/reflect those sizes, that's what we need to come in under.
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Checksums =
Unclear what the value of this test is. It's straightfoward to confirm that the ISO images posted match the provided checksums. But it's not clear
This is really for when we gpg sign CHECKSUM files, since that involves manual shuffling around of files and potential for things to go wrong. Basically test that the isos posted match the CHECKSUM posted.
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_Repoclosure =
I believe replaces the need for an @everything package install test. The intent is to use repoclosure to identify dependency conflicts without having to go through the hastle of booting a CD/DVD and manually selecting every package for install (even still the UI doesn't expose all packages on the media kit iirc).
I suspect this test would be easier and better to run while the compose is being created. I don't know if that's possible, but if so ... perhaps we just need a place to add compose-time unit test scripts?
It is somewhat possible to do this during compose, but the failure case is hard to define, and there is no facility to do this currently in the compose code. It is more easier to do when there is an exploded repo of the media set available to run repoclosure on, so we can likely skip this test for now, or I can do it where the compose happened and post results.
= QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts =
Ditto.
On 8/3/2009 10:53 PM, Liam wrote:
Greetings testers,
F12 Alpha test compose is ready now.please join us and execute
installation test from now on.Downloading link at: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/12-Alpha-TC/
PPC still needs to be composed, ran into some issues updating the compose host. All of x86_64 and i386 is uploaded, live images to come later.
please select and execute test cases which best match your environment from our wiki page at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
After complete testing,please don't forget to add your test results to corresponding place at above link.
More information, refer to previous mails below.
Thanks Liam
To reflect the recent changes in Fedora from i386 to i586 and from i586 to i686 should not the name of the 32bit ISOs be:
Fedora-12-Alpha-i686-DVD.iso instead of 'i386'?
Or perhaps even better. Since the 64 bit DVD ISO is named:
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86_64-DVD.iso
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86-DVD.iso be the name of the 32bit ISO ?
And as well as for the CD ISOs?
And the final Fedora 12 release ISOs?
Just a thought.
To reflect the recent changes in Fedora from i386 to i586 and from i586 to i686 should not the name of the 32bit ISOs be:
Fedora-12-Alpha-i686-DVD.iso instead of 'i386'?
Or perhaps even better. Since the 64 bit DVD ISO is named:
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86_64-DVD.iso
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86-DVD.iso be the name of the 32bit ISO ?
And as well as for the CD ISOs?
And the final Fedora 12 release ISOs?
Just a thought.
This question has been discussed before,please refer to this mail: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/msg00346.html
or search "i686" in this page to see other comments: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/date.html
Thanks Liam
On 8/9/2009 1:14 PM, Liam wrote:
To reflect the recent changes in Fedora from i386 to i586 and from i586 to i686 should not the name of the 32bit ISOs be:
Fedora-12-Alpha-i686-DVD.iso instead of 'i386'?
Or perhaps even better. Since the 64 bit DVD ISO is named:
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86_64-DVD.iso
Fedora-12-Alpha-x86-DVD.iso be the name of the 32bit ISO ?
And as well as for the CD ISOs?
And the final Fedora 12 release ISOs?
Just a thought.
This question has been discussed before,please refer to this mail: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/msg00346.html
or search "i686" in this page to see other comments: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/date.html
I understand the differences between i386, i586, and i686 processors. Some 32bit people that I try to convince to switch to Fedora do not understand that ISOs and RPM packages with 'i386' in their name are modern and not meant for 13 year old computers.
I was thinking that names such as:
'Fedora-12-x86-DVD.iso' instead of 'Fedora-12-i386-DVD.iso' and 'Fedora-12-x86_64-DVD.iso'
look more modern and up-to-date. reflecting the contents od the ISOs and packages.
Fedora is a great product. I appreciate you efforts and your work. And I congratulate all of you that work to produce it.
So name them as you wish. Which I am sure that you will do. :-)
Have a good day.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:07:17AM -0400, David Boles wrote:
I was thinking that names such as:
'Fedora-12-x86-DVD.iso' instead of 'Fedora-12-i386-DVD.iso' and 'Fedora-12-x86_64-DVD.iso'
look more modern and up-to-date. reflecting the contents od the ISOs and packages.
There is actually precedent for using i686 in the iso filename: Fedora-11-i686-Live.iso. I agree that the F12 DVD spins should be called Fedora-12-i686 as well. And maybe the directory structure on the mirrors should be changed from i386/os to i686/os.
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 14:11 +0800, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Hi, Liam. Only developers and BugZappers team members can set severity, reporters are locked out of the field. Setting this value should be done as part of the triage process (so you might like to talk to Andy about doing it). Thanks!
On 07/29/2009 05:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 14:11 +0800, Liam wrote:
The day(Jul 29 2009) for Fedora 12 Alpha candidate installation test is coming soon,please join us on that day to try the first installation test of F12. If you get some defects,I'd like you to file bugs according to this definition of Severity: * Urgent: the bug makes whole system unusable (or it is a security bug, which is per definition urgent) * High: the bug makes the program in question unusable * Medium: a real bug which makes program more difficult to use, at least part of the program is available; possibly workarounds are available * Low: anything else - cosmetic issues, corner cases with unusual (non-default) configurations, etc.
more details at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Severity
Hi, Liam. Only developers and BugZappers team members can set severity, reporters are locked out of the field. Setting this value should be done as part of the triage process (so you might like to talk to Andy about doing it). Thanks!
I can set severity when I file a bug, do you mean that setting makes no sense? or after a tester filed the bug, some developers will reset that severity if it is not correct?
Thanks Liam
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 09:51 +0800, Liam wrote:
I can set severity when I file a bug, do you mean that setting makes no sense?
You're allowed to because you're a maintainer (all package maintainers get added to the fedorabugs group in FAS automatically, and all fedorabugs FAS group members go into the editbugs group in Bugzilla).
or after a tester filed the bug, some developers will reset that severity if it is not correct?
The intended process is the reporter files the bug and leaves the severity alone, and the severity is set by the triage team when they triage the bug. The maintainer can override the triager's setting if he believes it is incorrect, and the maintainer's choice is final (by policy). So according to this process, Andy should set severity when she triages anaconda bugs.
Of course, in your case since you know anaconda pretty well and you know the severity policy and you have access to set the severity setting, it's fine for you to set it to the appropriate setting when you file a bug.
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:33 +0800, Liam wrote:
If you are interested in validating candidate build,please
select
and execute test cases which best match your environment from our
wiki
page at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results
With a defined test priority [1] now present in the results pages, I was curious how you felt about using the class="wikitable sortable" to allow for easier sorting of test results.
For example, I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results the 'Legend' and the 'Image Sanity' tables to make use of the CSS sorting. If this is worthwhile, I can carry these changes forward to the remaining tables+templates.
Hope this helps! James
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/Fedora12Install#Test_Priority
On 07/27/2009 08:58 PM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:33 +0800, Liam wrote:
With a defined test priority [1] now present in the results pages, I was curious how you felt about using the class="wikitable sortable" to allow for easier sorting of test results.
For example, I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results the 'Legend' and the 'Image Sanity' tables to make use of the CSS sorting. If this is worthwhile, I can carry these changes forward to the remaining tables+templates.
This really good,I like it very much.I can help you to do these changes to the remaining tables. :) Since we will start this round of test immediately,I still don't know when the physical media will be ready and where to get the download link.If tomorrow we can not see the physical media ,how we can face those testers?
Thanks Liam
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/Fedora12Install#Test_Priority
Sorry,I made a mistake to send this mail here.please ignore it
Thanks Liam
On 07/28/2009 11:10 AM, Liam wrote:
On 07/27/2009 08:58 PM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:33 +0800, Liam wrote:
With a defined test priority [1] now present in the results pages, I was curious how you felt about using the class="wikitable sortable" to allow for easier sorting of test results.
For example, I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results the 'Legend' and the 'Image Sanity' tables to make use of the CSS sorting. If this is worthwhile, I can carry these changes forward to the remaining tables+templates.
This really good,I like it very much.I can help you to do these changes to the remaining tables. :) Since we will start this round of test immediately,I still don't know when the physical media will be ready and where to get the download link.If tomorrow we can not see the physical media ,how we can face those testers?
Thanks Liam
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/Fedora12Install#Test_Priority
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:10 +0800, Liam wrote:
On 07/27/2009 08:58 PM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:33 +0800, Liam wrote:
With a defined test priority [1] now present in the results pages, I was curious how you felt about using the class="wikitable sortable" to allow for easier sorting of test results.
For example, I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_Install_Test_Results the 'Legend' and the 'Image Sanity' tables to make use of the CSS sorting. If this is worthwhile, I can carry these changes forward to the remaining tables+templates.
This really good,I like it very much.I can help you to do these changes to the remaining tables. :) Since we will start this round of test immediately,I still don't know when the physical media will be ready and where to get the download link.If tomorrow we can not see the physical media ,how we can face those testers?
There are a few installation blocking issues on the F12Alpha list that need to be resolved before the test compose can happen. Those include a handful of bugs noted in yesterdays QA meeting (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090727#Alpha_test_compose).
With those issues resolved, release engineering will be composing a test compose for QA on Wednesday. I'm not sure about the best method to stay informed when the test compose is available. So I have filed a releng trac ticket to stay informed of the task status. [1]
Thanks, James
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2016
I have started some testing and am having some trouble. Immediately after booting the install image, the display goes blank. CRTL-ALT-DEL will still reboot, but I can't see anything. If I specify something like vga=773 in the boot parameters, it works fine until anaconda starts. Then I see a mangled image of the login screen from before I rebooted.
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:10 -0500, Todd wrote:
I have started some testing and am having some trouble. Immediately after booting the install image, the display goes blank. CRTL-ALT-DEL will still reboot, but I can't see anything. If I specify something like vga=773 in the boot parameters, it works fine until anaconda starts. Then I see a mangled image of the login screen from before I rebooted.
Are you testing installation of rawhide? Or is this testing a previously installed system that has been upgraded to rawhide? If you are having trouble with X, and interested in gathering more information, I'd recommend https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Xorg/Debugging.
Good luck! James
I am testing the rawhide installer. If I add" vga=773 text" to the kernel when booting, I can get the the installer in text mode
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM, James Laskajlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:10 -0500, Todd wrote:
I have started some testing and am having some trouble. Immediately after booting the install image, the display goes blank. CRTL-ALT-DEL will still reboot, but I can't see anything. If I specify something like vga=773 in the boot parameters, it works fine until anaconda starts. Then I see a mangled image of the login screen from before I rebooted.
Are you testing installation of rawhide? Or is this testing a previously installed system that has been upgraded to rawhide? If you are having trouble with X, and interested in gathering more information, I'd recommend https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Xorg/Debugging.
Good luck! James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:25 -0500, Todd wrote:
I am testing the rawhide installer. If I add" vga=773 text" to the kernel when booting, I can get the the installer in text mode
What graphics card does your system have?
lspci says VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Adam Williamsonawilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:25 -0500, Todd wrote:
I am testing the rawhide installer. If I add" vga=773 text" to the kernel when booting, I can get the the installer in text mode
What graphics card does your system have?
-- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Hi Todd,
Thanks for sharing your test result with us.I suggest you to have a test on the coming F12 Alpha build.If the result is the same,go ahead and file a bug against it.Before that,we'd better search in Bugzilla to see whether someone has reported it. Enter a new bug here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi click Fedora. reference for how to file bug: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests
Thanks Liam
On 07/29/2009 07:33 AM, Todd wrote:
lspci says VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Adam Williamsonawilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:25 -0500, Todd wrote:
I am testing the rawhide installer. If I add" vga=773 text" to the kernel when booting, I can get the the installer in text mode
What graphics card does your system have?
-- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:33 -0500, Todd wrote:
lspci says VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Adam Williamsonawilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 15:25 -0500, Todd wrote:
I am testing the rawhide installer. If I add" vga=773 text" to the kernel when booting, I can get the the installer in text mode
What graphics card does your system have?
Please don't top post - thanks.
If you boot with 'xdriver=vesa' or just 'vesa' does that work?