Re: Gnome 3.0
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 20:08 -0800, Rob Healey wrote: Greetings: Does anyone know if there is a verbose schedule for the development of Gnome 3.0? I LOVE the gnome-shell, and I would like to see when things are planned in the development schedule? http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Fedora 14 and HDMI audio - silence.
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:53 -0800, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: No ground loop noise! VLC player can pass the Dolby Digital or DTS signal to the receiver for full surround sound. If you're trying to do this, expect problems, as PulseAudio doesn't really cope with encoded signal passthrough yet, though I believe someone's working on it. Fedora 14 (updated) with the current Nvidia driver is reported to support HDMI audio output. By installing the XFCE mixer I am able to activate iec958 1 which outputs an audio bit stream over the HDMI connector. I don't know if Xfce's mixer is doing the right thing, you may want to install pavucontrol and check the settings there. Is there a reasonably simple way to get Fedora to speak over the display adapter's HDMI output? For 'normal' playback (not encoded signal passthrough) it ought to work once you make sure to set the appropriate output for PA. If it still doesn't you'll need to file a bug with the recommended details - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_PulseAudio_problems , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_sound_problems . -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Fedora 14 and HDMI audio - silence.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:53 -0800, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: No ground loop noise! VLC player can pass the Dolby Digital or DTS signal to the receiver for full surround sound. If you're trying to do this, expect problems, as PulseAudio doesn't really cope with encoded signal passthrough yet, though I believe someone's working on it. Fedora 14 (updated) with the current Nvidia driver is reported to support HDMI audio output. By installing the XFCE mixer I am able to activate iec958 1 which outputs an audio bit stream over the HDMI connector. I don't know if Xfce's mixer is doing the right thing, you may want to install pavucontrol and check the settings there. Is there a reasonably simple way to get Fedora to speak over the display adapter's HDMI output? For 'normal' playback (not encoded signal passthrough) it ought to work once you make sure to set the appropriate output for PA. If it still doesn't you'll need to file a bug with the recommended details - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_PulseAudio_problems , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_sound_problems . I have a nvidia ion chipset that has similar problems on Fedora 14. I've not really got around to looking into the exact issues to file a bug. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora QA] #159: Network Device Naming Test Day
#159: Network Device Naming Test Day +--- Reporter: shyamiyerdell | Owner: narendr...@dell.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Test Day | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: +--- Comment (by narendrak): Hi, We are testing the installation scenario just to make sure we have everything needed in place for the test cases to succeed. To be specific, we were testing install Fedora Rawhide using Fedora 14 ISO media -- for guidance, see Install rawhide using Fedora 14 ISO With this method, during install time, when the network drivers load (from initrd), biosdevname binary and related 71-netdevice.rules required for rename is not available. Because of this we cannot test any install time scenarios. I think we will have to fall back on to custome built Rawhide Installation images (boot.iso or DVD.iso )incorporating biosdevname binary and related udev rule as suugested by James in one of the earlier threads. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/159#comment:19 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
Re: [Test-Announce] Call for reviewing TCMS use cases and comparison!
Unfortunately while I am familiar with a few test case management systems, I have not been involved with the Fedora project long enough to know its workflows. And a quick search online is not turning up much about Nitrate, with its changelog[1] implying it was first made open source software in July 2010. I might be able to provide some general comments though if I knew more about the product. So for those of us unfamiliar with the history of Nitrate, could you please answer the following: 1. What is the history of Nitrate and the Fedora Project? What does the Fedora project expect to gain from using it? 2. Is a sample play/sandbox test instance with more-or-less full access available online? 3. How does Nitrate compare to other open closed sourced TCMS solutions? Why was it written as opposed to using an existing solution, and what are its straights weaknesses? 4. Is test case test plan import and export (to XML, etc.) support available? If so is this compatible with any other TCMS's import/export system? 5. Are nested test plan and/or test case hierarchies supported? 6. Can multiple projects share test cases, and even reference older versions of test cases if they are lagging behind the current rawhide/Fedora release? Will Spins be able to make their own (simultaneously running) test plans? 7. How long will historical test case results be made available? 8. Is there any plan to tie this into Bodhi and other tools to detect updated packages that may imply test cases need re-running and/or updating? 9. Is this going to be available as a Fedorahosted service like Trac is? If so will all the instances be able to share test cases? 10. Is there any concern that changing test tracking systems may encourage/discourage existing testers to participate? Some of this information may be useful to post on the Trac main page and/or in the Fedora wiki. Thanks in advance for your time. --- SJG [1] https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/browser/trunk/nitrate/docs/ChangeLog On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:36 AM, He Rui r...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings! Wiki workflow/use cases are reorganized and grouped by general and main test events(runs) use cases. The general cases cover the basic uses of wiki, and the events cases covers the detailed certain steps for organizing the events. Please review it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_use_cases Meanwhile, Wiki and Nitrate comparison is also listed and grouped by above use cases. I've listed as many features as I can think out for comparison. Please have a look and see if any features are missed. You can review it by the use case you're familiar with if reviewing all of them is tough, but be aware that features compared in former use cases are not listed in later cases again to avoid overlaps: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_Comparison Ticket#152[1] is currently set up for tracking this event. Feel free to add comments or discuss it here. Note: the feedback deadline is Jan 21, the end of this week. After that date, I'll move forward to the next phase. Waiting for your feedback! Cheers, Hurry [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/152 -- Contacts Hurry FAS Name: Rhe Timezone: UTC+8 TEL: 86-010-62608141 IRC nick: rhe #fedora-qa #fedora-zh ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Introduction
Hi, I would like to patricipate and as i looked currently the best way to do is to try to join Bug Zappers Team. I have experience like system administrator, scripting developer, network/voip admin. I am working with linux a lot with since 2001. I come across lots of linux distros.. starting Redhat 7.2, gentoo, suse and fedora as well. My name is Jan Vongrej, I'm 30 years old and i live in Slovakia. At my signature I'm sending my contacts so fell free if anyone want to contact me. Bye Jan IRC: m0d0r AT irc.freenode.net gtalk: jan.vongrej -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Introduction
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:36 +0100, Jan Vongrej wrote: Hi, I would like to patricipate and as i looked currently the best way to do is to try to join Bug Zappers Team. I have experience like system administrator, scripting developer, network/voip admin. I am working with linux a lot with since 2001. I come across lots of linux distros.. starting Redhat 7.2, gentoo, suse and fedora as well. My name is Jan Vongrej, I'm 30 years old and i live in Slovakia. At my signature I'm sending my contacts so fell free if anyone want to contact me. Bye Jan IRC: m0d0r AT irc.freenode.net gtalk: jan.vongrej Hi Jan, welcome!. In addition to BugZappers [1], there are plenty of QA activities that might also be of interest. For example, Fedora 15 testing will be heating up soon, so there will also be a lot of of Test days [2] and release validation events [3] [4] to participate in. Otherwise, we always are in need of skilled testers to help validate test critical path updates [5]. Please take a moment to review and feel free to ask any questions. I look forward to your contributions :) Thanks, James [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Joining [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora QA] #159: Network Device Naming Test Day
#159: Network Device Naming Test Day +--- Reporter: shyamiyerdell | Owner: narendr...@dell.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Test Day | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: +--- Comment (by jlaska): Replying to [comment:19 narendrak]: I think we will have to fall back on to custome built Rawhide Installation images (boot.iso or DVD.iso )incorporating biosdevname binary and related udev rule as suugested by James in one of the earlier threads. Hi narendrak, I replied to you privately in email as well on this topic. I'll be glad to build and provide a Rawhide boot.iso for installation. However, will the required ''71-netdevice.rules'' rules file be available during a Rawhide live image install? Will that satisfy your test requirements? -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/159#comment:20 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
Re: Fedora 14 and HDMI audio - silence.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 at 10:25am, Adam Williamson wrote On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:53 -0800, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: No ground loop noise! VLC player can pass the Dolby Digital or DTS signal to the receiver for full surround sound. If you're trying to do this, expect problems, as PulseAudio doesn't really cope with encoded signal passthrough yet, though I believe someone's working on it. Wow, seriously? The advice I've always seen for HTPCs is to disable pulseaudio, but I was thinking about trying out pulse when I upgrade mine to F14. Guess not. To the OP, try taking pulse out of the equation by removing alsa-plugins-pulseaudio. On my F12 HTPC, digital passthrough works on both HDMI and optical with that setup. Places like the XBMC forums and/or the Linux forums over at avsforum can be quite helpful for this. -- Joshua Baker-LePain QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin UCSF -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Call for reviewing TCMS use cases and comparison!
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:54 -0500, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: Unfortunately while I am familiar with a few test case management systems, I have not been involved with the Fedora project long enough to know its workflows. And a quick search online is not turning up much about Nitrate, with its changelog[1] implying it was first made open source software in July 2010. I might be able to provide some general comments though if I knew more about the product. So for those of us unfamiliar with the history of Nitrate, could you please answer the following: Really good list of questions Samuel, thanks for jumping in. I know Hurry can provide feedback on the questions. However, I'll add my thoughts as well. 1. What is the history of Nitrate and the Fedora Project? What does the Fedora project expect to gain from using it? Hurry can touch on the goals for using nitrate. As for history, I can add my experiences ... This goes back to an eval we did using testopia in Fedora many releases agove. Unfortunately, the effort was canceled due to license incompatibility between Fedora and testopia. At that point, we invested in leveraging the wiki to best of our ability. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testopia_Evaluation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 After this, several folks got together and decided they would implement a new front-end on top of the testopia db schema. This would resolve the original license incompatibility and address usability issues that were raised with the testopia UI. The project started development internally, and was open-sourced in 2010. 1. Is a sample play/sandbox test instance with more-or-less full access available online? Not yet, I believe that's in plan for sometime during Fedora 15. Hurry and I were discussing the requirements for such an instance earlier this week. If you're interested in helping here, just let us know :) 1. How does Nitrate compare to other open closed sourced TCMS solutions? Why was it written as opposed to using an existing solution, and what are its straights weaknesses? See history comments above. Also, maybe the nitrate developers [1] can offer more insight on how it compares to other open-source solutions? I *think* that comparison work has been done in the past, I'm just not sure where to find the results. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/nitrate-devel 1. Is test case test plan import and export (to XML, etc.) support available? If so is this compatible with any other TCMS's import/export system? I believe import/export is supported using the testopia.dtd format. http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=nitrate.git;a=blob;f=trunk/nitrate/docs/ChangeLog - Fixed #564258 - [REF] Ability to export/print specified cases - Fixed #612803 - add an export feature for test case runs, can export … 1. Are nested test plan and/or test case hierarchies supported? I don't recall. Perhaps Hurry or the nitrate developers know? I know this feature has been discussed a *lot* with nitrate, and other solutions we've used in the past. I don't think support for nested test plans is something we've had a tremendous need for now, so I don't anticipate this being a MUSTHAVE feature in the near term. 1. Can multiple projects share test cases, and even reference older versions of test cases if they are lagging behind the current rawhide/Fedora release? Will Spins be able to make their own (simultaneously running) test plans? This is the hope. It's not really useful if we can only use it for release validation. I don't think we've fully explored how best to model other spins/projects, but I don't foresee big problems there. That will be fun to explore on the sandbox/staging instance. With regards to referencing older versions of a test case, I believe that support is there, although I'm not certain it's right for our needs. Keeping test documentation (plans and cases) updated is a pretty sizable maintenance challenge. I've seen many instances where support for versioned test cases allows test plans to suffer over time as they were linked against old and inaccurate test cases. Much like how the wiki is used now, we have support for linking against older versions of tests (wiki history), but we rarely ever use that feature. I expect that trend would continue in the short-term. 1. How long will historical test case results be made available? I suspect the limiting factor here is database size. I'm not aware of any rules or process that would require removal/archival of old results. However, at some point that could certainly be an issue we'd need to plan for. 1. Is there any plan to tie this into Bodhi and other tools to detect updated packages that may imply test cases need re-running and/or updating? That is certainly possible, but there are currently no
Re: Fedora 14 and HDMI audio - silence.
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:53 -0800, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: Not too long ago I upgraded my home theater system with a blu-ray player. This no longer worked with the HDMI on my old receiver, so I upgraded that too. I upgraded the video card on my stereo computer to an Nvidia 220 with HDMI output. With this combination I am able to watch NASA HD in Dolby Digital. No analog connections. No ground loop noise! VLC player can pass the Dolby Digital or DTS signal to the receiver for full surround sound. Fedora 14 (updated) with the current Nvidia driver is reported to support HDMI audio output. By installing the XFCE mixer I am able to activate iec958 1 which outputs an audio bit stream over the HDMI connector. Unfortunately, selecting HDMI audio under Sound Preferences does not break the silence. The receiver does not have the option of taking video from the HDMI output with analog audio. No tape monitor. No external processor loop. This problem will become more widespread as HDMI output becomes the norm, not the exception. Is there a reasonably simple way to get Fedora to speak over the display adapter's HDMI output? An updated F14 in combination with the GT220 running a recent Nvidia *binary* drivers should output audio onto HDMI just fine with VLC/mplayer/MythTV. What does aplay -l show? There are probably multiple digital interfaces listed, only one will work. On my system with a GT220 aplay -l lists: List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices card 0: NVidia [HDA NVidia], device 0: ALC880 Analog [ALC880 Analog] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 0: NVidia [HDA NVidia], device 1: ALC880 Digital [ALC880 Digital] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 1: NVidia_1 [HDA NVidia], device 3: NVIDIA HDMI [NVIDIA HDMI] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 1: NVidia_1 [HDA NVidia], device 7: NVIDIA HDMI [NVIDIA HDMI] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 1: NVidia_1 [HDA NVidia], device 8: NVIDIA HDMI [NVIDIA HDMI] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 1: NVidia_1 [HDA NVidia], device 9: NVIDIA HDMI [NVIDIA HDMI] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 For me the proper HDMI audio I/F is: card 1, device 7. Hope this helps. Jurgen -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Call for reviewing TCMS use cases and comparison!
A few more inline comments on a subset of the questions, and two more thoughts: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:54 AM, James Laska jla...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:54 -0500, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: 1. What is the history of Nitrate and the Fedora Project? What does the Fedora project expect to gain from using it? This goes back to an eval we did using testopia in Fedora many releases agove. Unfortunately, the effort was canceled due to license incompatibility between Fedora and testopia. At that point, we invested in leveraging the wiki to best of our ability. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testopia+AF8-Evaluation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 From the bug I'm guessing this is because Testopia used Ext-JS, and Ext-JS kept changing licenses. Hopefully there will only be licensing restrictions for Nitrate on the software itself, and not the created work of what one does while actively using it. 1. How does Nitrate compare to other open closed sourced TCMS solutions? Why was it written as opposed to using an existing solution, and what are its strengths weaknesses? See history comments above. Also, maybe the nitrate developers [1] can offer more insight on how it compares to other open-source solutions? I *think* that comparison work has been done in the past, I'm just not sure where to find the results. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/nitrate-devel Are the developers actively monitoring/using this list? I looked at it before, and all I saw were three test posts from July in the archives. 1. Can multiple projects share test cases, and even reference older versions of test cases if they are lagging behind the current rawhide/Fedora release? Will Spins be able to make their own (simultaneously running) test plans? This is the hope. It's not really useful if we can only use it for release validation. I don't think we've fully explored how best to model other spins/projects, but I don't foresee big problems there. That will be fun to explore on the sandbox/staging instance. With regards to referencing older versions of a test case, I believe that support is there, although I'm not certain it's right for our needs. Keeping test documentation (plans and cases) updated is a pretty sizable maintenance challenge. I've seen many instances where support for versioned test cases allows test plans to suffer over time as they were linked against old and inaccurate test cases. Much like how the wiki is used now, we have support for linking against older versions of tests (wiki history), but we rarely ever use that feature. I expect that trend would continue in the short-term. The reason I bring this up is because OLPC's Spin releases tend to lag behind the official Fedora release. For instance, we just released our hopefully final Fedora 11-based release this past month, and are in the early stages of the Fedora 14-based one. At least some Fedora ARM development work may still be going on with Fedora 13 as well. While decently written test cases will survive somewhat over time, major changes in GUI look feel or other areas can break their backwards compatibility. Ideally Nitrate will default to using the current version of a testcase when making a new plan, preferably following the updates of said testcase until a result is committed which forces the test case version to be needed. 1. How long will historical test case results be made available? I suspect the limiting factor here is database size. I'm not aware of any rules or process that would require removal/archival of old results. However, at some point that could certainly be an issue we'd need to plan for. Again; this would be to help lagging Spins and similar. Right now it looks like Bodhi at least publicly hides information for Fedora versions which have reached end-of-life. (Either that, or I don't know how to find it.) I presume that Nitrate has already been determined to be scalable; otherwise it is a big risk to incorporate it into Fedora. Also: It might be useful to add an unclear testcase result, similar to how Mozilla's Litmus system does it (https://litmus.mozilla.org). -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora QA] #155: F15 GNOME 3 Test Days
#155: F15 GNOME 3 Test Days ---+ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Test Day | Version: Resolution:|Keywords: ---+ Comment (by adamwill): I've created the page for the first test day: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha for now I just stuck in some of the desktop validation tests as test cases. Some of the others don't really apply to a GNOME 3-specific test day exactly, and some need re-writing before we can include them. We'll need to add test cases for things we want to test which aren't part of the desktop validation suite. I'll be mining upstream website and emails for topics. Contributions of test cases welcome! -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/155#comment:1 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
Fedora 14 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuser-0.56.18-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordpress-mu-2.9.2-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpkg-1.15.5.6-6.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sssd-1.5.0-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.3.5-1.fc14,maniadrive-1.2-26.fc14.1,php-eaccelerator-0.9.6.1-4.fc14,maniadrive-data-1.2-5.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/feh-1.10.1-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/socat-1.7.1.3-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_auth_mysql-3.0.0-12.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chm2pdf-0.9.1-9.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wireshark-1.4.3-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hplip-3.10.9-14.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/myproxy-5.3-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/proftpd-1.3.3d-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CGI-Simple-1.112-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/exim-4.72-2.fc14 The following Fedora 14 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/selinux-policy-3.9.7-25.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13-1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dmidecode-2.11-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/procps-3.2.8-15.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/system-setup-keyboard-0.8.6-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.11-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuser-0.56.18-3.fc14 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 14 updates-testing ElectricFence-2.2.2-30.fc14 R-qtl-1.19.20-1.fc14 bicon-0.2.0-1.fc14 boinc-client-6.10.58-1.r22930svn.fc14 cvs-1.11.23-12.fc14 dhcp-4.2.0-18.P2.fc14 drupal6-advanced-help-1.2-2.fc14 drupal6-footnotes-2.5-1.fc14 glibc-2.13-1 gnome-commander-1.2.8.10-1.fc14 holland-1.0.6-2.fc14 k3b-2.0.2-2.fc14 libmcs-0.7.2-3.fc14 mfiler3-4.2.1-1.fc14 perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.fc14 perl-IO-Socket-SSL-1.38-1.fc14 proftpd-1.3.3d-1.fc14 python-dialog-2.7-13.fc14 rubygem-hashery-1.4.0-2.fc14 saphire-1.2.4-1.fc14 selinux-policy-3.9.7-25.fc14 setroubleshoot-plugins-3.0.11-1.fc14 xmlstarlet-1.0.4-1.fc14 Details about builds: ElectricFence-2.2.2-30.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-0594) A debugger which detects memory allocation violations Update Information: Use the same formula as glibc uses to compute the memory alignment. ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 19 2011 Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com - 2.2.2-30 - Use the same formula as glibc uses to align memory - Resolves: #662085 References: [ 1 ] Bug #662085 - ElectricFence (ef/efence) doesn't properly align memory by default https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662085 R-qtl-1.19.20-1.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-0622) Tools for analyzing QTL experiments Update Information: New version from http://www.rqtl.org/ ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 19 2011 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se - 1.19.20-1 - New upstream release bicon-0.2.0-1.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-0600) Bidirectional Console References: [ 1 ] Bug #670090 - Review Request: bicon - Bidirectional Console https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670090 boinc-client-6.10.58-1.r22930svn.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-0609) The BOINC client core Update Information: -Update to bugfix release 5.10.58, see http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/VersionHistory ChangeLog: * Thu Jan 20 2011 Miloš Jakubíček xja...@fi.muni.cz - 6.10.58-1.r22930svn - Rebase the 6.10 branch to 6.10.58 - Fix rpmlint complaining: - E:
Fedora 13 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dbus-1.2.24-2.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/subversion-1.6.15-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.3.5-1.fc13,maniadrive-1.2-26.fc13.1,php-eaccelerator-0.9.6.1-4.fc13,maniadrive-data-1.2-5.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuser-0.56.16-1.fc13.2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordpress-mu-2.9.2-3.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpkg-1.15.5.6-6.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sssd-1.3.0-40.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/feh-1.10.1-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_auth_mysql-3.0.0-12.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chm2pdf-0.9.1-8.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wireshark-1.2.14-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sudo-1.7.4p5-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hplip-3.10.9-14.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/myproxy-5.3-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/proftpd-1.3.3d-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CGI-Simple-1.112-2.fc13 The following Fedora 13 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/procps-3.2.8-8.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sudo-1.7.4p5-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/elfutils-0.151-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/util-linux-ng-2.17.2-10.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuser-0.56.16-1.fc13.2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/attr-2.4.44-4.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/livecd-tools-13.1-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/selinux-policy-3.7.19-80.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pm-utils-1.2.6.1-4.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mash-0.5.20-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openldap-2.4.21-11.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-3.12.7-4.fc13,nss-util-3.12.7-2.fc13,nss-softokn-3.12.7-3.fc13,nspr-4.8.6-1.fc13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-0.2.904-7.fc13 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 13 updates-testing R-qtl-1.19.20-1.fc13 bicon-0.2.0-1.fc13 boinc-client-6.10.58-1.r22930svn.fc13 cvs-1.11.23-11.fc13 gnome-commander-1.2.8.10-1.fc13 holland-1.0.6-2.fc13 k3b-2.0.2-2.fc13 libmcs-0.7.2-3.fc13 mfiler3-4.2.1-1.fc13 perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.fc13 perl-IO-Socket-SSL-1.38-1.fc13 proftpd-1.3.3d-1.fc13 python-dialog-2.7-13.fc13 rubygem-hashery-1.4.0-2.fc13 saphire-1.2.4-1.fc13 Details about builds: R-qtl-1.19.20-1.fc13 (FEDORA-2011-0629) Tools for analyzing QTL experiments Update Information: New version from http://www.rqtl.org/ ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 19 2011 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se - 1.19.20-1 - New upstream release bicon-0.2.0-1.fc13 (FEDORA-2011-0606) Bidirectional Console References: [ 1 ] Bug #670090 - Review Request: bicon - Bidirectional Console https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670090 boinc-client-6.10.58-1.r22930svn.fc13 (FEDORA-2011-0628) The BOINC client core Update Information: -Update to bugfix release 5.10.58, see http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/VersionHistory ChangeLog: * Thu Jan 20 2011 Miloš Jakubíček xja...@fi.muni.cz - 6.10.58-1.r22930svn - Rebase the 6.10 branch to 6.10.58 - Fix rpmlint complaining: - E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/sysconfig/boinc-client - E: script-without-shebang /etc/sysconfig/boinc-client * Wed Jul 14 2010 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz - 6.10.45-2.r21128svn - rebuilt against wxGTK-2.8.11-2 cvs-1.11.23-11.fc13 (FEDORA-2011-0605) A version control system ChangeLog: * Thu Jan 20 2011 Petr Pisar
Re: [Test-Announce] Call for reviewing TCMS use cases and comparison!
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:03 -0500, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: A few more inline comments on a subset of the questions, and two more thoughts: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:54 AM, James Laska jla...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:54 -0500, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: 1. What is the history of Nitrate and the Fedora Project? What does the Fedora project expect to gain from using it? This goes back to an eval we did using testopia in Fedora many releases agove. Unfortunately, the effort was canceled due to license incompatibility between Fedora and testopia. At that point, we invested in leveraging the wiki to best of our ability. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testopia+AF8-Evaluation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 From the bug I'm guessing this is because Testopia used Ext-JS, and Ext-JS kept changing licenses. Hopefully there will only be licensing restrictions for Nitrate on the software itself, and not the created work of what one does while actively using it. That was a question I had opened with Hurry. I have no idea how we'd license the content in the system. If anything, I'd hope/expect that to match that of our current wiki. 1. How does Nitrate compare to other open closed sourced TCMS solutions? Why was it written as opposed to using an existing solution, and what are its strengths weaknesses? See history comments above. Also, maybe the nitrate developers [1] can offer more insight on how it compares to other open-source solutions? I *think* that comparison work has been done in the past, I'm just not sure where to find the results. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/nitrate-devel Are the developers actively monitoring/using this list? I looked at it before, and all I saw were three test posts from July in the archives. I believe they do, but don't yet have a strong upstream presence since there hasn't been a lot of code/progress to share until recently. This will be something I'm sure they'll want to improve as community interest increases. 1. Can multiple projects share test cases, and even reference older versions of test cases if they are lagging behind the current rawhide/Fedora release? Will Spins be able to make their own (simultaneously running) test plans? This is the hope. It's not really useful if we can only use it for release validation. I don't think we've fully explored how best to model other spins/projects, but I don't foresee big problems there. That will be fun to explore on the sandbox/staging instance. With regards to referencing older versions of a test case, I believe that support is there, although I'm not certain it's right for our needs. Keeping test documentation (plans and cases) updated is a pretty sizable maintenance challenge. I've seen many instances where support for versioned test cases allows test plans to suffer over time as they were linked against old and inaccurate test cases. Much like how the wiki is used now, we have support for linking against older versions of tests (wiki history), but we rarely ever use that feature. I expect that trend would continue in the short-term. The reason I bring this up is because OLPC's Spin releases tend to lag behind the official Fedora release. For instance, we just released our hopefully final Fedora 11-based release this past month, and are in the early stages of the Fedora 14-based one. At least some Fedora ARM development work may still be going on with Fedora 13 as well. While decently written test cases will survive somewhat over time, major changes in GUI look feel or other areas can break their backwards compatibility. Ideally Nitrate will default to using the current version of a testcase when making a new plan, preferably following the updates of said testcase until a result is committed which forces the test case version to be needed. I hope so, yes! :) I'm fairly certain support exists for linking against versioned cases, that is, I know it was present in testopia. Hopefully Hurry, or the nitrate folks can help here. Sounds like we need to add this to our list of requirements. 1. How long will historical test case results be made available? I suspect the limiting factor here is database size. I'm not aware of any rules or process that would require removal/archival of old results. However, at some point that could certainly be an issue we'd need to plan for. Again; this would be to help lagging Spins and similar. Right now it looks like Bodhi at least publicly hides information for Fedora versions which have reached end-of-life. (Either that, or I don't know how to find it.) That or garbage collected. Sounds like we'll need to do some further research on this front. I personally see no reason to purge results for EOL'd releases.
Re: [Fedora QA] #155: F15 GNOME 3 Test Days
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 19:34:26 -, Fedora QA t...@fedorahosted.org wrote: I've created the page for the first test day: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha for now I just stuck in some of the desktop validation tests as test cases. Some of the others don't really apply to a GNOME 3-specific test day exactly, and some need re-writing before we can include them. We'll need to add test cases for things we want to test which aren't part of the desktop validation suite. I'll be mining upstream website and emails for topics. Contributions of test cases welcome! Is this going to cover regessions for people that still want to run metacity? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Requests to join proventester group - not following procedure
I note that there are 5 requests current in FAS to join the proventester group, but without any corresponding QA Trac ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ The rules for entry require a ticket in the latter to start the process (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester for the current procedures) I guess that no action will be taken on the list of 5 requests unless the requestors file a ticket with QA Trac first! -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora QA] #155: F15 GNOME 3 Test Days
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:20 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 19:34:26 -, Fedora QA t...@fedorahosted.org wrote: I've created the page for the first test day: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha for now I just stuck in some of the desktop validation tests as test cases. Some of the others don't really apply to a GNOME 3-specific test day exactly, and some need re-writing before we can include them. We'll need to add test cases for things we want to test which aren't part of the desktop validation suite. I'll be mining upstream website and emails for topics. Contributions of test cases welcome! Is this going to cover regessions for people that still want to run metacity? We will cover automated fallback on systems which aren't capable of Shell. Whether there's going to be a manual option to choose the fallback GNOME interface on systems which *are* capable of Shell is a policy decision, not a QA issue. If desktop team decides to implement such a mechanism, we'll test it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Asterisk RPMs for F14?
Looking at the repos, it seems 1.6.2.12-0.1.rc1 is the available version. It looks like on asterisk.org, the latest version is 1.6.2.17-rc1. How would we go about updating the available asterisk version? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Requests to join proventester group - not following procedure
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:37:25 + mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote: I note that there are 5 requests current in FAS to join the proventester group, but without any corresponding QA Trac ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ The rules for entry require a ticket in the latter to start the process (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester for the current procedures) I guess that no action will be taken on the list of 5 requests unless the requestors file a ticket with QA Trac first! Yeah. I'd like to suggest: - Make the group 'invite only'. - Add to the description/requirements on the group a pointer to the process and tell people to see that link. - When sponsors sponsor someone into the group, they just add them, then sponsor them. This would prevent people from falling through the cracks like above. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Asterisk RPMs for F14?
SH == Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au writes: SH Looking at the repos, it seems 1.6.2.12-0.1.rc1 is the available SH version. Seems to me the latest available version in the repository is 1.8.0. SH How would we go about updating the available asterisk version? In a stable release? I'd assume that the maintainer would need to balance any benefits against the disruption such an update could cause. I'm assuming you can provide some benefits besides the version number is higher. And of course, it would be far more helpful if you would provide that list of benefits in a ticket filed against the package instead of on a mailing list. - J -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Possible future wpa-supplicant behavour question
I am in the IEEE 802.11ai session. This is 'Fast Initial Link' setup, a new task group in 802.11. We are looking at how we can accelerate a number of steps in wireless so that people walking (or even driving) from one WiFi domain to another will actually work. I am involved in two parts of this work. To put security schemes into the AUTHENTICATE exchanges and IP address assignment in the ASSOCIATE exchange. Let's talk about the IP address assignment. A scenario would have the ASSOCIATE REQUEST have an address request Information Element (IE-addr-req); it would have IPv4 and IPv6 flags (so you can get either or both back). An IPv6 IE in the ASSOCIATION RESPONSE would look like an IPv6 RA packet. An IPv4 IE would look like a DHCP response packet. This would be pasted up to that kernel in the MLME-MAC-Response, before Link establishment. Here is the question: Could the kernel accept and handle this information without the Link being up? Given the speed of standards work, we have a couple years to get this working :) Potentially by the next 802.11 meeting at the end of March, I could have diagrams of what the ASSOCIATION frames would look like and it would be really great if someone could actually code up a working implementation for Proof of Concept. I am NOT a programmer. Oh, putting a security exchange in the AUTHENTICATION is on the table as well. I am personally pushing HIP, but we will parametrise it for also IKEv2 and 802.1X to establish the WPA MSK, PTK, and GTK (these are the various keys used in WPA). Oh you can see the various presentation on 802.11ai by going to: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents and selecting TGai for the currrent efforts and FIA SG for the study group efforts https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1146-00-0fia-feasible-exchange.ppt is a presentation I made back in September showing some feasible exchanges. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Possible future wpa-supplicant behavour question
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:17:58PM -0800, Robert Moskowitz wrote: I am in the IEEE 802.11ai session. This is 'Fast Initial Link' setup, a new task group in 802.11. Hi Robert, I'm pretty interested in this, I'll follow up privately from another account... We are looking at how we can accelerate a number of steps in wireless so that people walking (or even driving) from one WiFi domain to another will actually work. I am involved in two parts of this work. To put security schemes into the AUTHENTICATE exchanges and IP address assignment in the ASSOCIATE exchange. Let's talk about the IP address assignment. A scenario would have the ASSOCIATE REQUEST have an address request Information Element (IE-addr-req); it would have IPv4 and IPv6 flags (so you can get either or both back). An IPv6 IE in the ASSOCIATION RESPONSE would look like an IPv6 RA packet. An IPv4 IE would look like a DHCP response packet. This would be pasted up to that kernel in the MLME-MAC-Response, before Link establishment. Here is the question: Could the kernel accept and handle this information without the Link being up? If I understand you right, this would be more or less like an inline (or in-negotiation) method for address resolution. I don't think it would be particularly difficult to add this support to the softmac code. Given the speed of standards work, we have a couple years to get this working :) Potentially by the next 802.11 meeting at the end of March, I could have diagrams of what the ASSOCIATION frames would look like and it would be really great if someone could actually code up a working implementation for Proof of Concept. I am NOT a programmer. Oh, putting a security exchange in the AUTHENTICATION is on the table as well. I am personally pushing HIP, but we will parametrise it for also IKEv2 and 802.1X to establish the WPA MSK, PTK, and GTK (these are the various keys used in WPA). Oh you can see the various presentation on 802.11ai by going to: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents and selecting TGai for the currrent efforts and FIA SG for the study group efforts https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1146-00-0fia-feasible-exchange.ppt is a presentation I made back in September showing some feasible exchanges. Thanks, should be interesting reading. --Kyle -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Asterisk RPMs for F14?
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 03:44:44PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: SH == Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au writes: SH Looking at the repos, it seems 1.6.2.12-0.1.rc1 is the available SH version. Seems to me the latest available version in the repository is 1.8.0. Actually 1.8.2.2. But in 1.6... series this would apparently be 1.6.2.16.1 (stable and not rc). Asterisk maintains 1.4 series too. In a stable release? I'd assume that the maintainer would need to balance any benefits against the disruption such an update could cause. I'm assuming you can provide some benefits besides the version number is higher. Closing assorted security holes would likely qualify as a benefit. There were various advisories from a time when 1.6.2.12-0.1.rc1 showed up, with the last one AST-2011-001 dated Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:41 ( http://www.asterisk.org/node/51557 ), and it does not seem likely that an old rc1 release was not affected. Michal -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
