update to fc17/ rawhide
All: Be aware of this grub2-1.99-1.fc17 package as it hosed my MBR, and I only got to a black screen basically telling me that I was going no where... Has anyone else had the same problem? -- Sincerely yours, Rob G. Healey Always surround yourself with people that inspire you to greatness! -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: update to fc17/ rawhide
Hi Rob, This problem is known about and has caused headaches for a few people. Fortunately the bug has been raised: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735259 Some folks over at fedora forum are also chatting about it: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=269190 Here's to a speedy recovery :) Rohan - Original Message - From: Rob Healey robheal...@gmail.com To: Fedora Development List test@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Sunday, 4 September, 2011 4:21:41 PM Subject: update to fc17/ rawhide All: Be aware of this grub2-1.99-1.fc17 package as it hosed my MBR, and I only got to a black screen basically telling me that I was going no where... Has anyone else had the same problem? -- Sincerely yours, Rob G. Healey Always surround yourself with people that inspire you to greatness! -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rawhide report: 20110903 changes
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 10:31:21 +0200 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Some i686 updates make it to the broken deps for x86_64, others don't... Why that? This is multilib. Basically packages that have a -devel subpackage have that devel subpackage and it's requirements (if available) shipped in the 64bit tree. The theory is that this allows people to develop and run 32bit applications if they need on 64bit machines. The 32bit packages in the 64bit repo that don't show up in the report, don't have broken deps. ;) You can see the exact logic used in the 'mash' project: http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=mash;a=blob;f=mash/multilib.py;h=9ae98f0adef296451e0ceffa7589b985d20725af;hb=980e4863b241bcb4bd18e1a82f6256aa1d28b65a If you are wanting to fix issues as a maintainer, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks may provide some ideas. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: no recent F16 pushes
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:29:58 + (UTC) Andre Robatino wrote: Any reason for the lack of recent F16 pushes? I also note that I still have to use --skip-broken due to a load of stuff involving gnome control panel and evolution-data-server and wot-not. Seems like those problems have been there forever as well. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
no recent F16 pushes
Tom Horsley horsley1953 at gmail.com writes: I also note that I still have to use --skip-broken due to a load of stuff involving gnome control panel and evolution-data-server and wot-not. Seems like those problems have been there forever as well. kiilerix on #fedora-qa pointed out that you can work around some of the broken dependencies by disabling the updates-testing repo. By doing this I was able to install some updates from the fedora repo, then doing a regular update managed to pull in a few more from updates-testing. So now for me yum check-update just lists empathy.x86_64 3.1.90.1-1.fc16 updates-testing evolution.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing evolution-NetworkManager.x86_64 3.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing evolution-data-server.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing evolution-help.noarch 3.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing gnome-keyring.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing gnome-keyring-pam.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing gnome-shell.x86_64 3.1.90.1-1.fc16 updates-testing seahorse.x86_64 3.1.90-1.fc16updates-testing -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: security update process failure
On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 23:01 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote: Hi ! I'd call it a failure when a security update for a critical path package gets stuck in -updates-testing for 6 weeks. I'm talking about the F14 libcap update, where only one proventester cared to test the updated package and commented on it. Sure, it is only a minor security issue, but shouldn't security updates have priority in testing over any pet packages you have ? Security updates certainly take preference for me as I'm trying to get them submitted as early as possible. But when a package sits in -testing for such a long time I need to ask myself why I should bother with doing timely security updates at all. The problem is really that not enough people test old releases. Barely any proventesters are on F14. If you look it's hardly just your update that's waiting on karma, there are quite a few waiting for F14. I've had 'do f14 karma' on my todo list for about a week and a half, but f16 keeps eating the time. I've mentioned this several times and floated a few ideas to fix it (as have others), but they haven't really gone anywhere. I haven't seen any indication that FESCo (which defined the update requirements - it's not a QA thing) considers it a big problem. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: security update process failure
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 23:01 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote: Hi ! I'd call it a failure when a security update for a critical path package gets stuck in -updates-testing for 6 weeks. I'm talking about the F14 libcap update, where only one proventester cared to test the updated package and commented on it. Sure, it is only a minor security issue, but shouldn't security updates have priority in testing over any pet packages you have ? Security updates certainly take preference for me as I'm trying to get them submitted as early as possible. But when a package sits in -testing for such a long time I need to ask myself why I should bother with doing timely security updates at all. The problem is really that not enough people test old releases. Barely any proventesters are on F14. If you look it's hardly just your update that's waiting on karma, there are quite a few waiting for F14. I've had 'do f14 karma' on my todo list for about a week and a half, but f16 keeps eating the time. I've mentioned this several times and floated a few ideas to fix it (as have others), but they haven't really gone anywhere. I haven't seen any indication that FESCo (which defined the update requirements - it's not a QA thing) considers it a big problem. One thing I have noticed is that once an update hits the 2 week old update period they seem to drop off the updates email that goes out and lists the updates that still need testing, is there a reason for that? Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F16: suddenly sounb preview in nautilus no more possible
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Bruce Cowan br...@bcowan.me.uk wrote: On 4 September 2011 06:50, Joachim Backes joachim.bac...@rhrk.uni-kl.de wrote: Hi, since about 2 days the nautilus sound preview fails: traversing sound files with the mouse pointer will highlight the icons, but will not play them. Anybody has this problem too? That has been removed in favour of Sushi. You need to install the sushi package, and then you can preview files by pressing the space bar after selecting them in Nautilus. Sushi can preview pretty much every type of file as well (including videos). -- Bruce Cowan br...@bcowan.me.uk -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test Does sushi have a .deb file so I can install it in ubuntu? I tri-boot my computer -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F16: suddenly sounb preview in nautilus no more possible
On 09/05/2011 08:06 AM, Ruch G wrote: Does sushi have a .deb file so I can install it in ubuntu? I tri-boot my computer Try asking in the Ubuntu mailing list. This is off topic here. Also quote only as much as necessary Rahul -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: security update process failure
On 09/05/2011 02:31 AM, Karsten Hopp wrote: Hi ! I'd call it a failure when a security update for a critical path package gets stuck in -updates-testing for 6 weeks. I'm talking about the F14 libcap update, where only one proventester cared to test the updated package and commented on it. You should file this issue with FESCo and ask for a amended policy Rahul -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: security update process failure
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 05:34:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 23:01 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote: Hi ! I'd call it a failure when a security update for a critical path package gets stuck in -updates-testing for 6 weeks. I'm talking about the F14 libcap update, where only one proventester cared to test the updated package and commented on it. Sure, it is only a minor security issue, but shouldn't security updates have priority in testing over any pet packages you have ? Security updates certainly take preference for me as I'm trying to get them submitted as early as possible. But when a package sits in -testing for such a long time I need to ask myself why I should bother with doing timely security updates at all. The problem is really that not enough people test old releases. Barely any proventesters are on F14. If you look it's hardly just your update that's waiting on karma, there are quite a few waiting for F14. I've had 'do f14 karma' on my todo list for about a week and a half, but f16 keeps eating the time. I've mentioned this several times and floated a few ideas to fix it (as have others), but they haven't really gone anywhere. I haven't seen any indication that FESCo (which defined the update requirements - it's not a QA thing) considers it a big problem. I need guidance. I've installed the F14 libcap from updates-testing. I have no idea if it works or how to test it--it doesn't appear to break anything as far as normal operation of my system. Is that good enough to give +1 karma to the package? If not, it would be helpful for the maintainer would put instructions in the update text saying how to test the update. So, I guess what I'm asking is, is it ok to give +1 to any/all packages if they work at all/we don't notice any regressions, or do we have to actually test what they are supposed to fix? Thanks. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: no recent F16 pushes
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:57:12PM +, Andre Robatino wrote: Tom Horsley horsley1953 at gmail.com writes: I also note that I still have to use --skip-broken due to a load of stuff involving gnome control panel and evolution-data-server and wot-not. Seems like those problems have been there forever as well. kiilerix on #fedora-qa pointed out that you can work around some of the broken dependencies by disabling the updates-testing repo. By doing this I was able to install some updates from the fedora repo, then doing a regular update managed to pull in a few more from updates-testing. So now for me yum check-update just lists empathy.x86_64 3.1.90.1-1.fc16 updates-testing evolution.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing evolution-NetworkManager.x86_64 3.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing evolution-data-server.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing evolution-help.noarch 3.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing gnome-keyring.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing gnome-keyring-pam.x86_643.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing gnome-shell.x86_64 3.1.90.1-1.fc16 updates-testing seahorse.x86_64 3.1.90-1.fc16 updates-testing I just grabbed the few missing packages directly from koji: folks-0.6.1-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm gnome-panel-3.1.5-5.fc16.x86_64.rpm gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-5.fc16.x86_64.rpm nautilus-sendto-3.0.0-11.fc16.x86_64.rpm and did: yum update folks-0.6.1-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm gnome-panel-3.1.5-5.fc16.x86_64.rpm gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-5.fc16.x86_64.rpm nautilus-sendto-3.0.0-11.fc16.x86_64.rpm \* These last few packages will hopfully appear on mirrors soon. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: security update process failure
On 09/05/2011 08:44 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: So, I guess what I'm asking is, is it ok to give +1 to any/all packages if they work at all/we don't notice any regressions, or do we have to actually test what they are supposed to fix? Thanks. It is ok to +1 if you don't notice any regressions. It would be very helpful to explicitly mention what you tested however. Rahul -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Fedora QA] #238: proventester request - jstanley
#238: proventester request - jstanley -+-- Reporter: jstanley | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major| Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -+-- = phenomenon = I'm not a proventester. = reason = I've been lazy and busy with Real Life(TM) = recommendation = Approve my membership :) (yes, I know how to use the testing repo, how to use Bodhi, etc) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/238 Fedora QA http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa Fedora Quality Assurance -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
