Greetings testers,
A Fedora 11 RC1 was built by release engineering last night. Per discussion in the QA meeting [1], I have created a new wiki page for the RC1 test run. The plan is to:
1. test the physical media tests (CD, DVD and live image) first 2. then follow-up with verifying MODIFIED [1] bugs and previously failed tests [3]
If interested in validating the release candidate, I encourage you to visit the wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results) and record results from any installs you've completed using the RC1 bits. Should any issues surface from your testing, let's run them through the severity decoder ring (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend#Proposal_B:) and consult https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs. Please continue to raise issues/concerns to the list.
Thanks, James
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090527#How_to_model_RC1_test_re... [2] http://tinyurl.com/pqeq6n [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC0_Install_Test_Results
On 05/28/2009 10:18 AM, James Laska wrote:
Greetings testers,
A Fedora 11 RC1 was built by release engineering last night. Per discussion in the QA meeting [1], I have created a new wiki page for the RC1 test run. The plan is to:
1. test the physical media tests (CD, DVD and live image) first 2. then follow-up with verifying MODIFIED [1] bugs and previously failed tests [3]
If interested in validating the release candidate, I encourage you to visit the wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results) and record results from any installs you've completed using the RC1 bits. Should any issues surface from your testing, let's run them through the severity decoder ring (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend#Proposal_B:) and consult https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs. Please continue to raise issues/concerns to the list.
Thanks, James
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090527#How_to_model_RC1_test_re... [2] http://tinyurl.com/pqeq6n [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC0_Install_Test_Results
Where can we get RC1?
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:04 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 05/28/2009 10:18 AM, James Laska wrote:
Greetings testers,
A Fedora 11 RC1 was built by release engineering last night. Per discussion in the QA meeting [1], I have created a new wiki page for the RC1 test run. The plan is to:
1. test the physical media tests (CD, DVD and live image) first 2. then follow-up with verifying MODIFIED [1] bugs and previously failed tests [3]
If interested in validating the release candidate, I encourage you to visit the wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results) and record results from any installs you've completed using the RC1 bits. Should any issues surface from your testing, let's run them through the severity decoder ring (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend#Proposal_B:) and consult https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs. Please continue to raise issues/concerns to the list.
Thanks, James
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090527#How_to_model_RC1_test_re... [2] http://tinyurl.com/pqeq6n [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC0_Install_Test_Results
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Thanks, James
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
-- Paul
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is unreachable when pinging the router: ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
uname -a Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci: ... 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) ...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer" to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks, Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Partha Bagchi wrote:
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is unreachable when pinging the router: ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there is a default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host," but some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP packets saying so.
If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I don't find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I expect. I suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but the router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp. You comment on "nearer" suggests that.
My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for starting a connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a feature, FC11 is working slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
Hope any of this helps.
uname -a Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci: ... 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) ...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer" to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks, Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Partha Bagchi wrote:
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is unreachable when pinging the router: ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there is a default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host," but some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP packets saying so.
If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I don't find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I expect. I suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but the router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp. You comment on "nearer" suggests that.
My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for starting a connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a feature, FC11 is working slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
Hope any of this helps.
uname -a Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci: ... 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) ...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer" to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks, Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my problem.
I don't believe 'netstat -m' exists? What am I looking for here?
Also, do you expect the output of tcpdump when I am further away from the router? I should mention that the router is in the basement and I am able to get a fine signal on the ground floor. When I step outside a few feet away that I cannot get a signal. I did not have this problem with Fedora 10, same hardware.
Are you familiar with ath9k?
Thanks for your help.
Partha
Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Partha Bagchi wrote:
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is unreachable when pinging the router: ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there is a default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host," but some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP packets saying so.
If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I don't find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I expect. I suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but the router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp. You comment on "nearer" suggests that.
My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for starting a connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a feature, FC11 is working slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
Hope any of this helps.
uname -a Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci: ... 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) ...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer" to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks, Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
> Where can we get RC1? I've buried the link under the "What to test" section -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my problem.
I don't believe 'netstat -m' exists? What am I looking for here?
I have always combined the two letters, but I'm sure "netstat -r -n" will do the same thing, verify that the routing table contains no surprises.
Also, do you expect the output of tcpdump when I am further away from the router? I should mention that the router is in the basement and I am able to get a fine signal on the ground floor. When I step outside a few feet away that I cannot get a signal. I did not have this problem with Fedora 10, same hardware.
If I read your original post right, you said you had a 40% signal. You might enter "iwconfig" from a command line and see what the values are for working and non-working. If you run tcpdump on the wireless NIC you *may* see packets being sent and ICMP error packets coming back. I'm just suggesting that it will provide more information at a low cost in time.
Are you familiar with ath9k?
One of the machines I have used required that driver, but I'm not a regular user. I have chased wireless problems on at least six or seven laptops, so I can suggest things which have provided useful information in the past. The network list or wireless list might also be worth reading or asking, but a change between Fedora versions is likely to be release related.
I expect the laptop will show something on tcpdump, which may or may not be useful. As noted, it's a low cost thing to try, I usually get all the cheap information I can and see if something sticks out.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Partha Bagchi wrote:
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is unreachable when pinging the router: ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there is a default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host," but some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP packets saying so.
If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I don't find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I expect. I suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but the router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp. You comment on "nearer" suggests that.
My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for starting a connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a feature, FC11 is working slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
Hope any of this helps.
uname -a Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci: ... 06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) ...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586 system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586 NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer" to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks, Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote: >> >> Where can we get RC1? > > I've buried the link under the "What to test" section - > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To...
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testi... and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks, James
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my problem.
I don't believe 'netstat -m' exists? What am I looking for here?
I have always combined the two letters, but I'm sure "netstat -r -n" will do the same thing, verify that the routing table contains no surprises.
My bad I read that as the letter "M" and not "RN". Sorry about that. netstat -r -n shows no surprises (from an su terminal).
Also, do you expect the output of tcpdump when I am further away from the router? I should mention that the router is in the basement and I am able to get a fine signal on the ground floor. When I step outside a few feet away that I cannot get a signal. I did not have this problem with Fedora 10, same hardware.
If I read your original post right, you said you had a 40% signal. You might enter "iwconfig" from a command line and see what the values are for working and non-working. If you run tcpdump on the wireless NIC you *may* see packets being sent and ICMP error packets coming back. I'm just suggesting that it will provide more information at a low cost in time.
iwconfig and NetworkManager track pretty well. My guess is that NetworkManager simply reports what iwconfig says.
My problem was I don't know what to look for. tcpdump is not very illuminating to me.
Are you familiar with ath9k?
One of the machines I have used required that driver, but I'm not a regular user. I have chased wireless problems on at least six or seven laptops, so I can suggest things which have provided useful information in the past. The network list or wireless list might also be worth reading or asking, but a change between Fedora versions is likely to be release related.
I expect the laptop will show something on tcpdump, which may or may not be useful. As noted, it's a low cost thing to try, I usually get all the cheap information I can and see if something sticks out.
I will try.
As an aside, ath9k was being rigorously developed. I stopped following their mailing list, so don't know the current status. However, as I stated, F10 did not have any problems. F11RC1 (fully updated) does.
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Thanks! Partha