On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 1:53 PM David wrote:
>
> Before the official Beta was published, was there an in-house test-Beta and
> also a rc-Beta ?
>
> Or were the published ISO’s today, the same as one of the above ?
>
The ISOs available on the website today are the same as Beta release
candidate 3
On 3/20/21 3:46 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> It is a regressing upstream bug from Mutter.
>
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/1686#note_1052162
Ah, OK thanks for the info! I've noticed that if I switch to an Xorg session it
works. But Xorg doesn't support a lot of the other
I am just re-phrasing my previous question here.
Before the official Beta was published, was there an in-house test-Beta and
also a rc-Beta ?
Or were the published ISO’s today, the same as one of the above ?
I am just curious how it all plays out.
I think I am still a newbie when it comes to
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:04:36AM -0500, David wrote:
> or are the current Beta versions just "test-Betas" ?? or "rc-Betas" for
> in-house use only ?
It is released. You should see an official email on the announcements list:
>In my opinion, a good review would be to install on hardware and show
>actual real-world work being done with Fedora 34, such as a drawing in
>FreeCAD, and how the system differs from Manjaro Gnome 40, Gnome OS,
>Ubuntu 20.10, etc.
Perhaps for the actual release, but this sounds premature for a
Yes, I just saw the announcement via Phoronix.
Ironically, I do not recall seeing it on the listserve, unless I overlooked
it.
David Locklear
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:13 AM Luna Jernberg
wrote:
> https://distrowatch.com/?newsid=11192
>
https://distrowatch.com/?newsid=11192
https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-the-release-of-fedora-34-beta/
The actual real Beta came out earlier today
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 5:04 PM David wrote:
> Is the Fedora 34 Beta officially out in the wild ?
>
> or are the current Beta versions just
Is the Fedora 34 Beta officially out in the wild ?
or are the current Beta versions just "test-Betas" ?? or "rc-Betas" for
in-house use only ?
Seems confusing. Why not do an public Alpha release, or at least a quite
Alpha release ?
Linux users who have never used Fedora or have little
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 10/187 (x86_64), 9/126 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210322.n.0):
ID: 826340 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/826340
ID: 826346 Test:
OLD: Fedora-34-20210322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 44
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 61.08 MiB
Size of dropped packages:14.84 MiB
Hi Anshul,
I added more information to readme of QA Dashboard [1]. If anything is
unclear, contact me via email lbra...@redhat.com
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/landingpage
Lukas
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Anshul Sahai 4-Year B.Tech. Chemical
Engineering via test wrote:
> Hi!
> This
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210322.0):
ID: 826137 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/7 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210322.0):
ID: 826126 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_update_cli@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/826126
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64),
13 matches
Mail list logo
