Re: why not a partition assignment mode?
On 2012-12-05 21:44 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed: On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 22:00 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Why is the first thing we do choosing a device, rather than a partition or a volume? Because people find it very valuable to be able to leave certain disks out of the installation and be entirely sure they will not be touched by the install process... I found the screen confusing, because: 1-The system had only one HD. 2-IIRC: selected state wasn't instantly recognizable. Repeated clicks on it toggled selected state on and off. Only after several did I figure "selected" out, and why the reaction to a click on the lower left link produced inexplicable responses. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: why not a partition assignment mode?
On 2012-12-05 21:44 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed: On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 22:00 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I don't know why you'd expect a 'partition assignment only' mode to > exist, given that there wasn't one in F17 and there was no indication of > one in any of the design documents for newui. Maybe it's expected because 95% of the world's desktop/server OS's have this option. Erm. Really? Are you sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here? I'm not sure I recall seeing any installer other than Mandriva's which offers a special version of its partitioning interface where you cannot create or remove partitions, only select mount points for existing partitions. That is what the OP is describing. For those unfamiliar, Mageia as a fork of Mandriva retained the same installation cmdline option "readonly=1". Using it presents the following partitioning windows during installation, quite logically, prior to software selection: #1 http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/mgaReadonly1s1.png #2 http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/mgaReadonly1s2.png After software is selected and installed is presented the following screen, where installation process summary and (re)configuration options can be seen: http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/mgaInstSummary.png -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 17 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 17 Security updates need testing: Age URL 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19442/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.1.4-1.fc17 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19717/xen-4.1.3-7.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19830/bind-9.9.2-3.P1.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19833/mysql-5.5.28-2.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19533/weechat-0.3.9.2-2.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19341/openstack-keystone-2012.1.3-3.fc17 73 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14650/tor-0.2.2.39-1700.fc17 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18950/cups-pk-helper-0.2.2-2.fc17 54 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16048/cobbler-2.4.0-beta2.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19349/mc-4.8.6-2.fc17 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19606/cups-1.5.4-16.fc17 15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18659/gnome-system-log-3.4.1-3.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19203/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc17 153 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19464/drupal6-ctools-1.10-1.fc17 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19705/bogofilter-1.2.3-1.fc17 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19605/totpcgi-0.5.4-1.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19282/perl-CGI-3.52-218.fc17,perl-5.14.3-218.fc17 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19726/mate-settings-daemon-1.5.4-1.fc17 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19759/qt-4.8.4-1.fc17 The following Fedora 17 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19759/qt-4.8.4-1.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19496/control-center-3.4.3-1.fc17,libwacom-0.6.1-1.fc17,gnome-settings-daemon-3.4.2-4.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19478/mutter-3.4.1-4.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19446/phonon-backend-gstreamer-4.6.2-2.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19344/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.14-1.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19350/ModemManager-0.6.0.0-2.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19354/xfwm4-4.8.3-3.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19262/bash-4.2.39-2.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19252/openssh-5.9p1-28.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19282/perl-CGI-3.52-218.fc17,perl-5.14.3-218.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19208/lxpanel-0.5.10-3.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19203/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc17 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19048/json-c-0.10-2.fc17 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19014/json-c-0.10-1.fc17 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19006/nss-util-3.14-1.fc17,nss-softokn-3.14-5.fc17,nss-3.14-7.fc17 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18950/cups-pk-helper-0.2.2-2.fc17 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18937/kdelibs-4.9.3-4.fc17 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18850/cronie-1.4.10-1.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18542/dnsmasq-2.64-1.fc17 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18329/abrt-2.0.19-2.fc17,libreport-2.0.19-3.fc17,btparser-0.23-1.fc17 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 17 updates-testing bind-9.9.2-3.P1.fc17 dnsmasq-2.64-1.fc17 insight-7.4.50-5.20120403cvs.fc17 libibmad-1.3.9-1.fc17 libibumad-1.3.8-1.fc17 mongodb-2.2.2-1.fc17 mysql-5.5.28-2.fc17 opensm-3.3.15-2.fc17 perl-CDB_File-0.97-1.fc17 perl-Locale-Codes-3.24-1.fc17 permlib-0.2.8-1.fc17 php-pluf-1.0-3.gitb1fed2e.fc17 python-moksha-hub-1.1.0-1.fc17 python-ptrace-0.6.4-2.fc17 python-txzmq-0.6.1-3.fc17 rubygem-openshift-origin-common-1.1.4-2.fc17 rubygem-openshift-origin-controller-1.1.10-2.fc17 sympol-0.1.8-2.fc17 vxl-1.17.0-8.fc17 wmudmount-1.13-4.fc17 Details about builds: bind-9.9.2-3.P1.fc17 (FEDORA-2012-19830) The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) server Update Information: This update fixes CVE-2012-5688.
Fedora 16 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 16 Security updates need testing: Age URL 75 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14452/bacula-5.0.3-33.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19538/weechat-0.3.9.2-2.fc16 48 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16415/389-ds-base-1.2.10.16-1.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19822/bind-9.8.4-3.P1.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19823/mysql-5.5.28-2.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19828/xen-4.1.3-6.fc16 32 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17553/libproxy-0.4.10-1.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19347/cups-1.5.4-10.fc16 153 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10314/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc16 73 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14654/tor-0.2.2.39-1600.fc16 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18927/cups-pk-helper-0.1.3-4.fc16 54 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16032/cobbler-2.4.0-beta2.fc16 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19227/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19449/drupal6-ctools-1.10-1.fc16 36 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17291/thunderbird-16.0.2-1.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19455/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.19-1.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19715/qt-4.8.4-1.fc16 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18330/perl-CGI-3.52-203.fc16,perl-5.14.3-203.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19740/bogofilter-1.2.3-1.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19752/dovecot-2.0.21-4.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19750/kernel-3.6.9-2.fc16 15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18661/firefox-17.0-1.fc16,xulrunner-17.0-3.fc16,thunderbird-enigmail-1.4.6-2.fc16,thunderbird-lightning-1.9-1.fc16,thunderbird-17.0-1.fc16 The following Fedora 16 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19823/mysql-5.5.28-2.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19750/kernel-3.6.9-2.fc16 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19715/qt-4.8.4-1.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19471/xulrunner-17.0.1-1.fc16,firefox-17.0.1-1.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19486/phonon-backend-gstreamer-4.6.2-2.fc16 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19265/lxpanel-0.5.10-3.fc16 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19227/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc16 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18927/cups-pk-helper-0.1.3-4.fc16 13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18857/koji-1.7.1-1.fc16 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18330/perl-CGI-3.52-203.fc16,perl-5.14.3-203.fc16 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 16 updates-testing bind-9.8.4-3.P1.fc16 insight-7.4.50-5.20120403cvs.fc16 mysql-5.5.28-2.fc16 perl-CDB_File-0.97-1.fc16 perl-Locale-Codes-3.24-1.fc16 php-pluf-1.0-3.gitb1fed2e.fc16 python-ptrace-0.6.4-2.fc16 xen-4.1.3-6.fc16 Details about builds: bind-9.8.4-3.P1.fc16 (FEDORA-2012-19822) The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) server Update Information: This update fixes CVE-2012-5688. ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 5 2012 Tomas Hozza 32:9.8.4-3.P1 - update to bind-9.8.4-P1 References: [ 1 ] Bug #883533 - CVE-2012-5688 bind: DoS on servers using DNS64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883533 insight-7.4.50-5.20120403cvs.fc16 (FEDORA-2012-19838) Graphical debugger based on GDB Update Information: * Wed Dec 5 2012 Patrick Monnerat 7.4.50-5.20120403cvs - Patch "bz883591" to fix a segmentation fault. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883591 ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 5 2012 Patrick Monnerat 7.4.50-5.20120403cvs - Patch "bz883591" to fix a segmentation fault. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883591 ---
Re: Liberation 2.0 Vs Liberation 1.0 (Need comments)
On 3 December 2012 22:26, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Hi All, > > > As you know Liberation 2.0 is one of the feature of Fedora 18. Recent > > analysis and comparison with Liberation 1 it is more clear that > > final output of Liberation 2.0 is not as sharp as it was with > > Liberation 1.0. Though both are from same vendor (Ascender > > Corporation) hinting bytecodes are different. > > > Liberation2 already available in Fedora18 Beta, if one wants to > > install both fonts simultaneously Download [1] has liberation ttf > > with different family name, so one can have both version same time > > on Fedora. (cp to /usr/share/fonts/liberation and then fc-cache) > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239 , though bugzilla > > has more than 100 comments but if someone see to the attached > > screenshot will be sufficient for review. > > I have replied in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239#c125 > > I was very unpleasantly surprised by Fedora 18, because some sites are > blurry as hell. I think people should not respond to this thread unless > they see it on their own eyes first (and try to read some long article with > that font). It makes my eyes bleed. Fedora 17 rendering was definitely > better and crisper. > Yes, that is clear from screenshots. > If you do keep the current blurry fonts as default (god forbid), please at > least provide an easy way to switch to Fedora 17 rendering style. Thanks. > We all thought we need to wait for some more times for this feature. Decided in Fedora i18 meeting to defer this feature now. I will build liberation 1.07.2 soon for Fedora 18. It will solve the issue. Backward compatibility is difficult in this case. But next time i will give better try. Regards, Pravin Satpute -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Canon printer/scanner driver installation problem Fedora 18 Beta
Now I installed the Canon Pixma MP 540 on Fedora 18 Beta (64bit, Gnome Desktop and 32bit, Lxde Desktop). On both systems the scanner works fine with "Simple Scanning Utility", The printer works with "Cups+Gutenprint", but the paper feed seems to be not totally ok. I can use only the paper feed in the backside of the printer, used normally for photo prints. So far I couldn't manage to feed the paper via the cassette (both systems). -Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- Von: julechner An: test Verschickt: Mo, 3 Dez 2012 10:46 am Betreff: Re: Canon printer/scanner driver installation problem Fedora 18 Beta Thank You for Your help. I found libpng12.so.0in the Rawhide package (libpng12-1.2.50-2.fc19.i686.rpm). For libtiff.so.3 so far I found nothing, but there is a currently not solved Bug Report in F18 concerning "libtiff". I think I have to wait for the 32bit system untill this bug is solved. I will try now to install the Canon printer on 64bit Fedora 18 Beta. Joerg -Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- Von: Michal Jaegermann An: julechner Verschickt: So, 2 Dez 2012 6:19 pm Betreff: Re: Canon printer/scanner driver installation problem Fedora 18 Beta On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 08:54:41AM -0500, julech...@aol.com wrote: > > Result: > [root@localhost Downloads]# sudo rpm -U scangearmp-common-1.20-1.i386.rpm > Fehler: Fehlgeschlagende Abhängigkeiten: > libpng12.so.0 wird benötigt von scangearmp-common-1.20-1.i386 > [root@localhost Downloads]# sudo rpm -U cnijfilter-mp540series-3.00-1.i386.rpm > Fehler: Fehlgeschlagende Abhängigkeiten: > libpng12.so.0 wird benötigt von cnijfilter-mp540series-3.00-1.i386 > libtiff.so.3 wird benötigt von cnijfilter-mp540series-3.00-1.i386 > [root@localhost Downloads]# > > > > These old libraries (libpng12.so.0 and libtiff.so.3) -as I can see- > have been in previous Fedora packages. I think the Canon driver > doesn't want the corresponding libraries of Fedora 18 Beta. You can always put copies of old libraries somewhere out of a normal path searched for libraries and start your scanner with a shell wrapper which adds this new location to LD_LIBRARY_PATH before calling your scanner binaries. See, for example, http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html for explanations and examples. It is hard to be sure in advance but if other applications check .so properly you can just drop copies of old libraries somewhere in that path (likely /usr/local/lib/ will do), rerun ldconfig and be done with it. You can install scangearmp-common-1.20-1.i386.rpm by adding --nodeps to rpm flags. If you do that it is up to you to ensure that required libraries will be indeed found and assorted checks will complain now and in the future about broken dependencies. To prevent the last one instead of installing via rpm you do mkdir /var/tmp/install && cd /var/tmp/install rpm2cpio //scangearmp-common-1.20-1.i386.rpm | cpio -imd and after that you copy results of such unpacking into proper places "by hand". In such case you are entirely on your own to make sure that everything works properly and rpm and yum will know nothing about this. That includes missed possible future updates. Michal -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Liberation 2.0 Vs Liberation 1.0 (Need comments)
On 3 December 2012 21:08, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Lun 3 décembre 2012 15:26, pravin@gmail.com a écrit : > > Hi All, > > > > As you know Liberation 2.0 is one of the feature of Fedora 18. Recent > > analysis and comparison with Liberation 1 it is more clear that final > > output of Liberation 2.0 is not as sharp as it was with Liberation 1.0. > > Though both are from same vendor (Ascender Corporation) hinting bytecodes > > are different. > > As you wrote results are subjective and I can't stand myself windows-like > font butchering (subpixel hinting, gross glyph distortion). IMHO some > people are fighting a losing battle in trying to perpetuate bitmap font > rendering. > Yeah, even me feel same now. It looks contradictory to achieve bitmap fonts rendeirng with outline fonts. It this case better to use bitmap fonts and lower point size like till 16 where bitmap fonts can give excellent sharp output. > > Every new font is going the Liberation 2 way so I'm not sure at all > investing in old-style hinting is useful at all. I've seen the very same > horror cries when Luxy was dumped, and history showed they were a very > small minority. > Agree. Since Croscore is also from same vendor Ascender, outline is same in fonts. Still the bytecode is different. I still not understood the reason behind the change in bytecode data. > > It may be best to keep a Liberation1 package somewhere and have old-style > hinting fans maintain it. But I doubt they'll be able to keep up with > Unicode changes. And anyway with hi-dpi screens hitting Apple customers > nows, and Android tablet producers following suit, Liberation1-style > hinting is going to be irrelevant in a few years. Resources would be > better expanded in getting our GUI stack to work with hi-dpi before such > hardware becomes common IMHO. > Yeah, this might be reason behind changes in bytecode. Dunno do we need to wait for future in that case. Regards, Pravin Satpute -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: why not a partition assignment mode? (Re: community etiquette (Re: Rename anaconda to cryptoconda?))
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 22:00 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> > > > > I don't know why you'd expect a 'partition assignment only' mode to > > exist, given that there wasn't one in F17 and there was no indication of > > one in any of the design documents for newui. > > Maybe it's expected because 95% of the world's desktop/server OS's > have this option. Erm. Really? Are you sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here? I'm not sure I recall seeing any installer other than Mandriva's which offers a special version of its partitioning interface where you cannot create or remove partitions, only select mount points for existing partitions. That is what the OP is describing. > And maybe it's expected because it actually works with a very simple > and discoverable UI for both basic and advanced user needs. > > Let's rephrase the question, open to the whole list: why is a point > and shoot install to a volume (or partition) such a bad idea that it > isn't even an option in anaconda? I'm not sure that question makes any sense in context. > Why is the first thing we do choosing a device, rather than a > partition or a volume? Because people find it very valuable to be able to leave certain disks out of the installation and be entirely sure they will not be touched by the install process... -- 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: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On Dec 5, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Or better, if you're using some other instance of GRUB2, is to add a menu > entry for that GRUB's cute. I stop thinking, stop typing and hit send… add a menu entry to that first GRUB's grub.cfg using configfile to point to the Fedora grub.cfg. No sense in using grub to chain load another grub. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline and Feature Process changes
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:50 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > Hi! > FESCo on today's meeting decided to move the final change deadline > by one week earlier (2012-12-11) to avoid Christmas holidays > break [1] but the final release date remains the same - 2013-01-08 [2]. > After the Final Change Deadline only approved blocker and NTH bugs > will be included into the final release, please make sure to do the > Bodhi work for everything you'd like to see in final. > > FESCo also agreed on Feature Process modifications [3] - from now, all > proposed features will be publicly announced on devel-announce by > the Feature Wrangler once the page content is verified for correctness > and FESCo votes on Feature no sooner than a week after the announcement > to encourage broader discussion. Related to this change, we'll be aiming to compose the first Test Composes this week. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ 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
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 12:13 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:54:45AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Having depended on kickstart for years, I'm of the very strong belief > > > that while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, > > > *all* documented commands should work for final unless they were > > > marked as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. > > > (Preferably two releases, since jumping one release is expected with our > > > lifecycle.) > > I would prefer this as well, I'm just afraid it's not realistic. We now > > have months of delay and still dozens of accepted and proposed final > > blockers. If we demand something like that, we might not be able to > > release at all. > > I think that may be the case _now_ with our current Anaconda situation, but > the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel about making this the > approach for future releases. When there's _not_ a big Anaconda rewrite, > kickstart commands shouldn't change drastically without planning. So, I > don't think it's unreasonable in the real world. The commands themselves shouldn't change, but it's certainly possible - and frequently happens - for something to change in anaconda or some layer below anaconda which happens to have the effect of breaking a kickstart directive. -- 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: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 20:23 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 12/05/2012 05:10 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Some of the existing or previous list admins, obviously. I don't remember > > who. > > The changes made were related to LinkedIn spam going into moderation queue > > instead of being discarded. > > The settings have not been unchanged for 4 years, that's not true. > > Any changes to our list settings should be announced to this list and > who's granted list admin access actually matters since it usually > requires a very special type of people to be handled properly from my > pov thus the community should have a saying in who those individuals are. At present, myself, Tim and Kamil have admin access. We haven't changed anything major for years AFAIR. Kamil wasn't planning to *change* anything, he thought something had broken and needed fixing, but it turned out to be a false alarm. We fiddle with the filtering for annoying stuff like linkedin spam now and again, but basically, it's a straightforward setup - you subscribe and then you can post whatever you like. There is no active moderation of content. > > > > Johann, I replied to you according to "be excellent to each other" > principle. I would appreciate if you formulated your questions also > according to this principle, instead of being aggressive. Otherwise > your question might go unanswered next time. Thank you. > > You call that aggressive? It did come off as a little bit aggressive, yeah. I believe this happens quite a bit - you have a style that can read as aggressive without you necessarily knowing it. You use the general construction 'who gave you the power/right to XXX...' quite a bit - I think you might not know that this comes off as kind of a rude way of phrasing the question, in colloquial English. If you asked someone the question that way in casual conversation, they'd feel like they were being attacked and get defensive. I don't think you meant it that way, but it can be read that way. I gave Kamil and Tim their admin access, James gave me admin access. -- 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: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 07:39 -0500, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 06:45:08AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > > On 12/04/2012 05:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > >On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > >Slightly off topic, I'm kinda liking system-storage-manager new to F18 and > > >installable from the live cd. > > >yum install system-storage-manager > > >ssm list > > > > > >And you'll get a listing of all devices, pools, volumes, and their mount > > >points, better layout all in one place rather than having to go dig for > > >info with multiple tools: fdisk, df, pvscan, lvscan, etc. > > > > > > > > You are right ... ssm is nice. I wonder if there is a gui version planned? > > You mean what mount used to show before systemd? well, no, not at all. the main 'nice thing' about ssm is that it can handle LVM and btrfs nicely, which isn't at all to do with the output of mount. -- 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: why not a partition assignment mode? (Re: community etiquette (Re: Rename anaconda to cryptoconda?))
On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > I don't know why you'd expect a 'partition assignment only' mode to > exist, given that there wasn't one in F17 and there was no indication of > one in any of the design documents for newui. Maybe it's expected because 95% of the world's desktop/server OS's have this option. And maybe it's expected because it actually works with a very simple and discoverable UI for both basic and advanced user needs. Let's rephrase the question, open to the whole list: why is a point and shoot install to a volume (or partition) such a bad idea that it isn't even an option in anaconda? Why is the first thing we do choosing a device, rather than a partition or a volume? Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Please help test packages!
Seeing Kalev's post made me recall that I do have an FAS account. It suffers from lack of use as a proactive helper. Who can give me advice about replacing the ssh key on it? I long ago lost track of the private key. Same thing with the gpg key...it may have expired anyhow. I also downloaded the install DVD, but I'm not sure how much help I can be testing it. I've only paid attention to this in the last few days and only because I was attracted to the thread about the user interface for setting mount points. I could test this very carefully on another system but it seems pretty close to the release date. Bob On 12/5/12 9:46 PM, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote: On 12/05/12 14:42, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi, F18 currently has a huge number of unapproved updates queued in updates-testing. Could folks that are on F18 please run fedora-easy-karma occasionally and file karma as appropriate? And please don't only file negative karma, positive karma is also very much needed in case you don't notice any regressions. It would be a huge help if some more people could help with the feedback. This is how it works: a) Get a FAS account, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts b) Update to F18 / install from scratch c) Run fedora-easy-karma on the command line daily d) Profit! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines Thanks! Well I never knew about that handy little tool. Thanks for pointing that out, knocked out a bunch of them. -Erinn -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Please help test packages!
On 12/05/12 14:42, Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi, > > F18 currently has a huge number of unapproved updates queued in > updates-testing. Could folks that are on F18 please run > fedora-easy-karma occasionally and file karma as appropriate? > > And please don't only file negative karma, positive karma is also very > much needed in case you don't notice any regressions. > > It would be a huge help if some more people could help with the > feedback. This is how it works: > > a) Get a FAS account, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts > b) Update to F18 / install from scratch > c) Run fedora-easy-karma on the command line daily > d) Profit! > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines > > Thanks! > Well I never knew about that handy little tool. Thanks for pointing that out, knocked out a bunch of them. -Erinn signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > No Logical Volumes listed. There are only the regular partitions and the > Physical Volume partitions listed under unknown. > > Did a pvscan which showed the three VGs on this system. Then I did a lvscan > which listed all of the Logical Volumes and showing them inactive. This is DVD? Netinst? Or LiveCD? I'm using a LiveCD, and VGs are active already. > Did a vgchange -a y and a of the LVs showed active. I did the > just after the first gui screen came up. > > When I got the manual storage configuration, no LVs shown. On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >> > OK, I boot up the "live" gnome desktop and used it to install. Yes, all of > the LVs were there and it figured out all of the installed/bootable systems. > I was able to manually configure and re-use partitions. OK so you're saying it works with the LiveCD but doesn't with DVD or Netinst? Please file a bug. And reproduce the problem, once you get to Manual Partitioning, go to a shell and grab the .log files from /tmp and post those to the bug report. This is arguably a release blocking bug if it's reproducible. > > BUT, it did not offer me a choice of where to install grub2 (MBR or boot > partition) … it did MBR which was not too bad because I could easily recover. In beta, anaconda 18.29 has an option to not install a bootloader. 1.) It doesn't work, that's fixed in the 18.34 and 18.35 I've tested yesterday; and 2.) there is no option to install GRUB 2 to a partition because it's not recommended by upstream for ext4 to take block lists, which is the only way to get GRUB to install to an ext4 partition since ext4 only has 1024 bytes of boot sector padding. So if you want GRUB2 on a partition, you have to 'grub2-install --force /dev/sdaX' yourself. Or better, if you're using some other instance of GRUB2, is to add a menu entry for that GRUB's Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Please help test packages! (was: Fedora 18 updates-testing report)
Hi, F18 currently has a huge number of unapproved updates queued in updates-testing. Could folks that are on F18 please run fedora-easy-karma occasionally and file karma as appropriate? And please don't only file negative karma, positive karma is also very much needed in case you don't notice any regressions. It would be a huge help if some more people could help with the feedback. This is how it works: a) Get a FAS account, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts b) Update to F18 / install from scratch c) Run fedora-easy-karma on the command line daily d) Profit! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines Thanks! -- Kalev On 12/06/2012 12:17 AM, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing: > Age URL >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19777/bind-9.9.2-5.P1.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19664/bogofilter-1.2.3-1.fc18 >3 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19508/drupal6-ctools-1.10-1.fc18 >3 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19521/zabbix-2.0.3-7.fc18 > 57 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15716/libxslt-1.1.27-2.fc18 >8 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19056/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19804/kernel-3.6.9-4.fc18 >8 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19125/perl-CGI-3.59-235.fc18,perl-5.16.2-235.fc18 >7 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19158/kde-settings-4.9-16.fc18.1 > 15 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18579/gnome-system-log-3.6.1-2.fc18 > 26 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17907/cups-pk-helper-0.2.4-1.fc18 > 54 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15996/cobbler-2.4.0-beta2.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19301/cups-1.5.4-20.fc18 >5 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19439/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.1.4-1.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19584/openstack-keystone-2012.2.1-1.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19588/weechat-0.3.9.2-2.fc18 > 26 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17834/cumin-0.1.5522-4.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19652/xen-4.2.0-6.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19673/qt-4.8.4-1.fc18 > > > The following Fedora 18 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: > Age URL >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19780/exo-0.10.0-1.fc18,Thunar-1.6.0-1.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19811/systemd-195-10.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19806/dnsmasq-2.64-1.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19813/NetworkManager-0.9.7.0-9.git20121004.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19799/python-meh-0.19-1.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19777/bind-9.9.2-5.P1.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19802/livecd-tools-18.13-1.fc18 >0 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19804/kernel-3.6.9-4.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19682/passwd-0.78.99-3.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19653/fltk-1.3.0-8.fc18,tigervnc-1.2.80-0.6.20121126svn5015.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19673/qt-4.8.4-1.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19659/iputils-20121125-2.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19640/alsa-lib-1.0.26-2.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19639/gdb-7.5.1-31.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19576/util-linux-2.22.1-2.4.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19596/mesa-9.0.1-1.fc18 >1 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19592/libgcrypt-1.5.0-8.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19583/openssh-6.1p1-3.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19578/sgpio-1.2.0.10-10.fc18 >2 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19570/gdb-7.5.1-30.fc18 >3 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19509/gnome-shell-3.6.2-4.fc18 >3 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19526/pango-1.32.3-1.fc18 >5 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19437/shared-mime-info-1.0-7.fc18 >5 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19417/hostname-3.11-4.fc18 >5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19433/dwz-
Re: [Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline and Feature Process changes
- Original Message - > > > From: Jaroslav Reznik > > To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org, test- > > annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Date: 12/05/2012 15:53 > > Subject: [Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline > > and Feature Process changes > > Sent by: test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > Hi! > > FESCo on today's meeting decided to move the final change deadline > > by one week earlier (2012-12-11) to avoid Christmas holidays > > break [1] but the final release date remains the same - 2013-01-08 > > [2]. > > After the Final Change Deadline only approved blocker and NTH bugs > > will be included into the final release, please make sure to do the > > Bodhi work for everything you'd like to see in final. > > > > FESCo also agreed on Feature Process modifications [3] - from now, > > all > > proposed features will be publicly announced on devel-announce by > > the Feature Wrangler once the page content is verified for > > correctness > > and FESCo votes on Feature no sooner than a week after the > > announcement > > to encourage broader discussion. > > > > Jaroslav > > > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/960 > > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule > > [3] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/869 > > > [3] does not look the right link Ops, sorry - it's getting too late here - it should be https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896 Jaroslav > > -- > John Florian > > -- > 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: [Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline and Feature Process changes
> From: Jaroslav Reznik > To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org, test- > annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Date: 12/05/2012 15:53 > Subject: [Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline > and Feature Process changes > Sent by: test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Hi! > FESCo on today's meeting decided to move the final change deadline > by one week earlier (2012-12-11) to avoid Christmas holidays > break [1] but the final release date remains the same - 2013-01-08 [2]. > After the Final Change Deadline only approved blocker and NTH bugs > will be included into the final release, please make sure to do the > Bodhi work for everything you'd like to see in final. > > FESCo also agreed on Feature Process modifications [3] - from now, all > proposed features will be publicly announced on devel-announce by > the Feature Wrangler once the page content is verified for correctness > and FESCo votes on Feature no sooner than a week after the announcement > to encourage broader discussion. > > Jaroslav > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/960 > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule > [3] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/869 [3] does not look the right link -- John Florian -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Heads up: Fedora 18 Final Change Deadline and Feature Process changes
Hi! FESCo on today's meeting decided to move the final change deadline by one week earlier (2012-12-11) to avoid Christmas holidays break [1] but the final release date remains the same - 2013-01-08 [2]. After the Final Change Deadline only approved blocker and NTH bugs will be included into the final release, please make sure to do the Bodhi work for everything you'd like to see in final. FESCo also agreed on Feature Process modifications [3] - from now, all proposed features will be publicly announced on devel-announce by the Feature Wrangler once the page content is verified for correctness and FESCo votes on Feature no sooner than a week after the announcement to encourage broader discussion. Jaroslav [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/960 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule [3] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/869 ___ 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
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
On 12/05/2012 05:10 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: Some of the existing or previous list admins, obviously. I don't remember who. The changes made were related to LinkedIn spam going into moderation queue instead of being discarded. The settings have not been unchanged for 4 years, that's not true. Any changes to our list settings should be announced to this list and who's granted list admin access actually matters since it usually requires a very special type of people to be handled properly from my pov thus the community should have a saying in who those individuals are. Johann, I replied to you according to "be excellent to each other" principle. I would appreciate if you formulated your questions also according to this principle, instead of being aggressive. Otherwise your question might go unanswered next time. Thank you. You call that aggressive? JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2 Minutes
= #fedora-bugzappers: f18final-blocker-review-2 = Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-12-05/f18final-blocker-review-2.2012-12-05-17.01.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-12-05/f18final-blocker-review-2.2012-12-05-17.01.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-12-05/f18final-blocker-review-2.2012-12-05-17.01.log.html Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (tflink, 17:01:14) * Introduction (tflink, 17:07:20) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (tflink, 17:07:33) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (tflink, 17:07:42) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (tflink, 17:07:42) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (tflink, 17:07:48) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (tflink, 17:07:48) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (tflink, 17:07:54) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria (tflink, 17:07:54) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria (tflink, 17:07:54) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Final_Release_Criteria (tflink, 17:07:54) * The current count of blocker and NTH bugs is: (tflink, 17:08:08) * 25 Proposed Blockers (tflink, 17:08:17) * 15 Accepted Blockers (tflink, 17:08:18) * 23 Proposed NTH (tflink, 17:08:18) * 5 Accepted NTH (tflink, 17:08:18) * LINK: http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/blockerbugs/sorted/sortedBlockers.html (tflink, 17:09:47) * 12 proposed blockers highlighted for discussion (tflink, 17:09:58) * (851265) booting a wrong arch results in a black screen (tflink, 17:10:40) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851265 (tflink, 17:10:40) * Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW (tflink, 17:10:40) * AGREED: 851265 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - While this is inconvenient, it is easily workaround-able (don't boot an image that your arch can't support) it is rejected as a blocker for F18 final. However, some warning message would be nice and a tested fix would be considered past freeze. (tflink, 17:16:37) * (873220) dracut ignores /etc/modprobe.d blacklist (tflink, 17:16:42) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873220 (tflink, 17:16:45) * Proposed Blocker, dracut, NEW (tflink, 17:16:47) * AGREED: 873220 - RejectedBlocker - Given our understanding at this time, this mostly affects the third-party graphics drivers which does not violate any F18 release criteria and could be fixed with an update. Therefore rejected as a blocker for F18 final (already accepted as NTH, a tested fix would be considered past freeze) (tflink, 17:26:49) * (881670) Provide fedup hook to add x-systemd.device-timeout=0 to mount options for encrypted file systems that need a passphrase from the user (tflink, 17:27:44) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881670 (tflink, 17:27:47) * Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW (tflink, 17:27:50) * there is still a lot of confusion around this issue and there is currently not enough information to make a decision on blocker status. will re-visit when there is more info (tflink, 17:28:41) * (870753) [abrt] gnome-font-viewer-3.6.0-1.fc18: load_font_infos: Process /usr/bin/gnome-font-viewer was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) (tflink, 17:30:08) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870753 (tflink, 17:30:11) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-font-viewer, MODIFIED (tflink, 17:30:14) * AGREED: 870753 - It's still unclear on whether this is still crashing or just displaying a bogus error message. We need more info on current behavior before deciding on blocker status. Request that a new gnome-font-viewer be built with the in-bug patch and testing with the new version to determine current behavior. (tflink, 17:40:42) * (862828) cancelling network time service kills firstboot (tflink, 17:40:51) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862828 (tflink, 17:40:51) * Proposed Blocker, system-config-date, ASSIGNED (tflink, 17:40:52) * AGREED: 862828 - AcceptedBlocker - This provides a pretty bad first impression but doesn't completely violate any F18 release criterion. Accepted (pending criterion revision proposal) as it violates the following F18 alpha release criterion in spirit: "In most cases, a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention ..."
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On 12/05/2012 01:24 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: On 12/05/2012 06:57 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: As far as getting F18 installed, some of this is OBE because I used fedup and it worked just fine so I now have a live F18 system for testing. However, I would like the installer to work and of all the parts that I consider critical, storage configuration is first in line. I believe that the best way I can duplicate the problem and get some documentation is to replicate it virtually and get some screenshots. I wonder if the remote display still works? I used that in the past. Now, if only I can remember how to do it. On 12/05/2012 02:41 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I am not sure how things are suppose to work but I do not see ANY LVs In Manual Partitioning, on the left side, you do not have an +Unknown listing located under -New Fedora 18 Installation? Or there are no LV's listed? I will go back and double check but I do not remember seeing an LVs. No Logical Volumes listed. There are only the regular partitions and the Physical Volume partitions listed under unknown. Did a pvscan which showed the three VGs on this system. Then I did a lvscan which listed all of the Logical Volumes and showing them inactive. Did a vgchange -a y and a of the LVs showed active. I did the just after the first gui screen came up. When I got the manual storage configuration, no LVs shown. ?? And, yes, I want to re-use previously allocated LVs for my install. There are regular old partitions which I can use for /boot but all of the rest of my disk space is in PVs. What do you get for pvscan and lvscan? Are there inactive LVs? I will need to check. IMO, the whole way storage is being handled in F18 needs to be rethought! Guessing how to do something should never happen. I agree. But I think in your case the trail is leading to a bug not flawed design. I am sure this is a bug. However, I would like some button or whatever "earlier" in the process that says "I know what I am doing, let me manually configure existing partitions and/or LVs or allocate new ones on mount points. Getting a screenshot in anaconda does not work anymore or I would give you one. Suggestions? OK, I boot up the "live" gnome desktop and used it to install. Yes, all of the LVs were there and it figured out all of the installed/bootable systems. I was able to manually configure and re-use partitions. BUT, it did not offer me a choice of where to install grub2 (MBR or boot partition) ... it did MBR which was not too bad because I could easily recover. Gene -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On 12/05/2012 06:57 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: As far as getting F18 installed, some of this is OBE because I used fedup and it worked just fine so I now have a live F18 system for testing. However, I would like the installer to work and of all the parts that I consider critical, storage configuration is first in line. I believe that the best way I can duplicate the problem and get some documentation is to replicate it virtually and get some screenshots. I wonder if the remote display still works? I used that in the past. Now, if only I can remember how to do it. On 12/05/2012 02:41 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I am not sure how things are suppose to work but I do not see ANY LVs In Manual Partitioning, on the left side, you do not have an +Unknown listing located under -New Fedora 18 Installation? Or there are no LV's listed? I will go back and double check but I do not remember seeing an LVs. No Logical Volumes listed. There are only the regular partitions and the Physical Volume partitions listed under unknown. Did a pvscan which showed the three VGs on this system. Then I did a lvscan which listed all of the Logical Volumes and showing them inactive. Did a vgchange -a y and a of the LVs showed active. I did the just after the first gui screen came up. When I got the manual storage configuration, no LVs shown. ?? And, yes, I want to re-use previously allocated LVs for my install. There are regular old partitions which I can use for /boot but all of the rest of my disk space is in PVs. What do you get for pvscan and lvscan? Are there inactive LVs? I will need to check. IMO, the whole way storage is being handled in F18 needs to be rethought! Guessing how to do something should never happen. I agree. But I think in your case the trail is leading to a bug not flawed design. I am sure this is a bug. However, I would like some button or whatever "earlier" in the process that says "I know what I am doing, let me manually configure existing partitions and/or LVs or allocate new ones on mount points. Getting a screenshot in anaconda does not work anymore or I would give you one. Suggestions? Gene -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:54:45AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Having depended on kickstart for years, I'm of the very strong belief > > that while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, > > *all* documented commands should work for final unless they were > > marked as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. > > (Preferably two releases, since jumping one release is expected with our > > lifecycle.) > I would prefer this as well, I'm just afraid it's not realistic. We now > have months of delay and still dozens of accepted and proposed final > blockers. If we demand something like that, we might not be able to > release at all. I think that may be the case _now_ with our current Anaconda situation, but the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel about making this the approach for future releases. When there's _not_ a big Anaconda rewrite, kickstart commands shouldn't change drastically without planning. So, I don't think it's unreasonable in the real world. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
> On 12/05/2012 02:05 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to > > post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received > > complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to > > some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or > > it might be just my lame hands. > > > > Please stand by until we resolve the issue, or subscribe to the > > list to work around the problem. Thanks. > > Afaik I know you always had to subscribe and I personally preferred > that > we kept it that way. > > Who granted you access to start fiddling with our mailman settings > which > we have been using unchanged before you even started with RH? Some of the existing or previous list admins, obviously. I don't remember who. The changes made were related to LinkedIn spam going into moderation queue instead of being discarded. The settings have not been unchanged for 4 years, that's not true. Johann, I replied to you according to "be excellent to each other" principle. I would appreciate if you formulated your questions also according to this principle, instead of being aggressive. Otherwise your question might go unanswered next time. Thank you. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Blocker Bug Voting and Conversation
> > > There is one important drawback, and that is the necessity to be > > > subscribed to the list. > > > > I think this is an interesting idea, but aside from the drawbacks > > someone else noted (blocker voting is not QA-only), I see another: > > our > > current mailing list archive kinda sucks and is a pain to read a > > long > > thread on. If we get the shiny new one Mo is designing this might > > become > > a moot point, but right now I'd rather read even a messy bugzilla > > report > > than a long ML thread via our mail archives. > > As I found out today, this mailing list allowed non-subscribed people > to post (and it broke today). Scratch that, it didn't. It's a thing to consider, but it would involve quite a lot of burden on list owner side. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Problems installing Fedora 18 Beta
On 05.12.2012 17:33, Lawrence Graves wrote: > I am having problems with the installing of Fedora 18 Beta on my PC. I > have it install from an earlier version namely Fedora 18 Beta TC9. I > am trying to do afresh install with the lastest release Fedora Beta > RC1. When I get to the part to select the drive I want to install > Fedora 18 on it simply will not allow me. I can't understand this > problem. Would you please advise me as to what might be causing this > problem. > -- > All things are workable but don't all things work. Prov. 3:5 & 6 > > So you have a previous Fedora 18 version installed already? Now you must manually reclaim all disk space used by this installation and assign "mount points" to new partitions being very cautious because it's a mine field. I found zeroing MBR in my virtual machines much easier than playing with anaconda. But there might be some cases where you don't want to lose all your existing data. If you have dedicated disk just zero MBR and make anaconda think it's fresh empty disk. Mateusz Marzantowicz -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Problems installing Fedora 18 Beta
I am having problems with the installing of Fedora 18 Beta on my PC. I have it install from an earlier version namely Fedora 18 Beta TC9. I am trying to do afresh install with the lastest release Fedora Beta RC1. When I get to the part to select the drive I want to install Fedora 18 on it simply will not allow me. I can't understand this problem. Would you please advise me as to what might be causing this problem. -- All things are workable but don't all things work. Prov. 3:5 & 6 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:05:56 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or it might be just my lame hands. Please stand by until we resolve the issue, or subscribe to the list to work around the problem. Thanks. Some of the lists moderate posts from non-subscribers. That only really works well if the moderators let appropropriate posts through in a timely manner. If there isn't a commitment from moderators, then its probably better to outright reject posts from non-subscribers. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On 12/05/2012 02:37 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, *all*documented commands should work for final unless they were marked as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. (Preferably two releases, since jumping one release is expected with our lifecycle.) Agreed. JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
On 12/05/2012 02:05 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or it might be just my lame hands. Please stand by until we resolve the issue, or subscribe to the list to work around the problem. Thanks. Afaik I know you always had to subscribe and I personally preferred that we kept it that way. Who granted you access to start fiddling with our mailman settings which we have been using unchanged before you even started with RH? JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:54:45AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > *all* documented commands should work for final unless they were marked > > as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. (Preferably two > > releases, since jumping one release is expected with our lifecycle.) > I would prefer this as well, I'm just afraid it's not realistic. We now > have months of delay and still dozens of accepted and proposed final > blockers. If we demand something like that, we might not be able to > release at all. I guess I would settle for "documented in the release notes as changed, but blockers otherwise". -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: New Tester Introduction
On 12/05/2012 01:12 PM, Lukas Brabec wrote: Hi, I'm Lukas Brabec (lbrabec) and I'm new Red Hat intern in Fedora QA. I'm former user of Gentoo and Arch. I like coffee, beer, rock and metal. I hope my bug reports will help bring Fedora to brighter tomorrows. Welcome to the party. Dont hesitate to dive inn not only to reporting but to everything else as well :) JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:05:56 -0500 (EST) > Kamil Paral wrote: > > > If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to > > post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received > > complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to > > some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or > > it might be just my lame hands. > > > > You always had to subscribe to post, > as long as I've bee here circa 2008? > > Otherwise it's spam city. > > Regards, > Frank Thanks Frank for confirmation, it was a false alert. One of the guys changed his email address and then reported test-list was no longer accepting his posts. Because it was just a day after I made some changes, I assumed I broke something. (I wasn't sure whether test list accepted unsubscribed senders or not). So everything should be working well now. Please report if it doesn't, thanks. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:22:52AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > I tried to make a core selection. I had the following in mind: > > 1. Kickstarts are used for automation, therefore the most important > > commands related to automation must work (manual intervention is > > not fine). > > 2. Commands which are easily work-aroundable shouldn't be part of > > the core selection. > > Example: 'authconfig' kickstart command is just a wrapper around > > authconfig tool. You can issue the same command in %post and it > > should do the same. If %post works, it's trivial to work around > > nonfunctional authconfig kickstart command. The same applies for > > 'firewall', 'group', 'user' and others, it's trivial to run it > > in %post. > > Having depended on kickstart for years, I'm of the very strong belief > that > while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, > *all*documented commands should work for final unless they were > marked as > deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. (Preferably two > releases, since jumping one release is expected with our lifecycle.) I would prefer this as well, I'm just afraid it's not realistic. We now have months of delay and still dozens of accepted and proposed final blockers. If we demand something like that, we might not be able to release at all. Of course, in a better world, big thumb up. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:22:52AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > I tried to make a core selection. I had the following in mind: > 1. Kickstarts are used for automation, therefore the most important commands > related to automation must work (manual intervention is not fine). > 2. Commands which are easily work-aroundable shouldn't be part of the core > selection. > Example: 'authconfig' kickstart command is just a wrapper around authconfig > tool. You can issue the same command in %post and it should do the same. If > %post works, it's trivial to work around nonfunctional authconfig kickstart > command. The same applies for 'firewall', 'group', 'user' and others, it's > trivial to run it in %post. Having depended on kickstart for years, I'm of the very strong belief that while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, *all*documented commands should work for final unless they were marked as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. (Preferably two releases, since jumping one release is expected with our lifecycle.) -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > I'm not fully decided either way, maybe a bit in favor; I hope some people > will comment here as well. Just keep in mind we want to keep the core command > set small. I agree -- %include and %ksappend should be part of the core command set that's required to work for Final. -- Jared Smith -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
> I make heavy use of the %include directive which I don't see that > you've mentioned anywhere. It's a rather fundamental feature for how > I use kickstarts through livecd-tools to effect dynamic sections. I > suppose I could revise my tools to create a dynamic, yet monolith > kickstart script, but at present I have everything tooled to around > a core kickstart script, numerous static helpers that get %included > and several dynamic helpers that are also %included. Thus I'd > appreciate seeing %include added to the criteria, if it's not too > much of a pain. Thanks, that would mean including %ksappend as well (very similar, but different use cases). It's true that %include can be used to insert dynamic behavior into the kickstart based on the environment and the machine. Example: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Kickstart#Example Some of the functionality might be tricky to work around - you can generate several versions of your kickstarts, all static (without %include), but then you have to know which kickstarts to run on which machines, and it could defeat some points of automation. I'm not fully decided either way, maybe a bit in favor; I hope some people will comment here as well. Just keep in mind we want to keep the core command set small. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:05:56 -0500 (EST) Kamil Paral wrote: > If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to > post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received > complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to > some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or > it might be just my lame hands. > You always had to subscribe to post, as long as I've bee here circa 2008? Otherwise it's spam city. Regards, Frank "At then end of the day, it's 23:59" -- God's tweet -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
test list rejecting unsubscribed senders
If I understand correctly, this list allowed unsubscribed people to post to this list (can somebody confirm?). Today I received complaints that it is no longer possible. It might be related to some adjustments I've made in mailman lately. It might be a bug or it might be just my lame hands. Please stand by until we resolve the issue, or subscribe to the list to work around the problem. Thanks. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
> From: Kamil Paral > > In the discussion about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869978 > we agreed that we should have a list of core kickstart commands that > should definitely work for a Final release. > > All the options are documented here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Kickstart > > I tried to make a core selection. I had the following in mind: > 1. Kickstarts are used for automation, therefore the most important > commands related to automation must work (manual intervention is not fine). > 2. Commands which are easily work-aroundable shouldn't be part of > the core selection. > Example: 'authconfig' kickstart command is just a wrapper around > authconfig tool. You can issue the same command in %post and it > should do the same. If %post works, it's trivial to work around > nonfunctional authconfig kickstart command. The same applies for > 'firewall', 'group', 'user' and others, it's trivial to run it in %post. > 3. Some commands have plenty of options. We can't really define into > the smallest detail which one of them must work and which doesn't > have to. In this case a blocker-bug discussion is necessary to > weight the importance of the option, its usage volume and the risk involved. > > > I arrived at three different categories of the core set: > > == Setting up installation environment == > network > updates > keyboard > lang > rootpw > > * 'network' and 'updates' are core commands, in same cases you > really need them to start the installation. > * 'keyboard' and 'lang' might probably be worked around in %pre, but > it might be non-trivial for people. But I'm not firmly decided here. > * 'rootpw' can be worked around in %post, but I consider it pretty > basic command to work without problems > > == Partitioning the system == > zerombr > autopart > clearpart > part > bootloader > volgroup > logvol > > * Partitioning is pretty major function of the installer and if > doesn't work, it's just useless. I consider it core. > * LVM support might be questioned. I decided to put it here, because > LVM is the Fedora default and it might be pretty useful in some > automated installation. We can discuss it though. > * I haven't included some other partitioning commands, like 'btrfs', > 'raid', or 'multipath'. They are useful and pretty, but I don't see > them as really core. > > == Installation process == > install > upgrade > repo > %packages > %pre > %post > poweroff > reboot > > * 'install' and 'upgrade', because you need to be able to tell > installer which mode to use > * 'repo' because you need to set your mirror, or activate/deactive > updates-testing, or something like that > * '%packages' because package selection is one the core functions ofkickstart > * '%pre' and '%post' because it is often needed for some post- > install setups (setting up sshd, creating accounts etc) and also can > be used to work around broken commands > * 'poweroff' and 'reboot' because in an automated environment these > might be very important for you. Rebooting a computer that is 1000 > miles away from you might not be an easy task. > > > It might be a bit difficult to put this into criteria, I think there > is no other way except than list the core commands. We can't say > "everything related to partitioning", because then people would > argue "btrfs" command is included. Maybe we can create a separate > page/subpage related to kickstart core commands and just link to it > from the criteria document. > > Comments very welcome. I make heavy use of the %include directive which I don't see that you've mentioned anywhere. It's a rather fundamental feature for how I use kickstarts through livecd-tools to effect dynamic sections. I suppose I could revise my tools to create a dynamic, yet monolith kickstart script, but at present I have everything tooled to around a core kickstart script, numerous static helpers that get %included and several dynamic helpers that are also %included. Thus I'd appreciate seeing %include added to the criteria, if it's not too much of a pain. FWIW it's presently working fine for me with my test box that was F17 originally and yum-upgraded to F18 shortly after the branch was made. This box is running my tool that runs livecd-tools to make custom live spins that I've been heavily testing and developing since the branch. -- John Florian -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Blocker Bug Voting and Conversation
> > There is one important drawback, and that is the necessity to be > > subscribed to the list. > > I think this is an interesting idea, but aside from the drawbacks > someone else noted (blocker voting is not QA-only), I see another: > our > current mailing list archive kinda sucks and is a pain to read a long > thread on. If we get the shiny new one Mo is designing this might > become > a moot point, but right now I'd rather read even a messy bugzilla > report > than a long ML thread via our mail archives. As I found out today, this mailing list allowed non-subscribed people to post (and it broke today). Nevertheless, that would eliminate the drawback, allowing even non-list members to join the discussion. I still agree the archives are painful to use (word-wrapping of long lines should be fixed soon however), but I think I see it as less painful than bugzilla discussion. But the difference is very small indeed. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
F-18 Branched report: 20121205 changes
Compose started at Wed Dec 5 09:16:09 UTC 2012 New package: php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc18 PHP micro framework New package: phpMemcachedAdmin-1.2.2-5.svn262.fc18 Graphic stand-alone administration for memcached to monitor and debug purpose New package: rubygem-openstack-quantum-client-0.1.5-3.fc18 The main objective of this gem is to deal easily with openstack quantum Updated Packages: fedora-release-notes-17.95.0-0.fc18 --- * Tue Dec 04 2012 John J. McDonough - 17.95.0 - Fedora 18 Beta release notes ibus-typing-booster-0.0.23-1.fc18 - * Fri Nov 23 2012 Mike FABIAN - 0.0.23-1 - Update to 0.0.23 upstream version - Resolves: #879262 dictionary is not automatically reloaded when it is installed via the setup tool - Make the engine reload the dictionary when the dictionary is installed via the setup tool mate-control-center-1.5.1-1.fc18 * Sun Nov 25 2012 Dan Mashal - 1.5.1-1 - Bump to 1.5.1 release novnc-0.4-2.fc18 * Mon Oct 22 2012 Nikola Đipanoov - 0.4-2 - Fixes the supplied init script to match the new 0.4 version * Mon Oct 22 2012 Nikola Đipanoov - 0.4-1 - Moves to upstream version 0.4.0 pesign-0.100-1.fc18 --- * Fri Nov 30 2012 Peter Jones - 0.100-1 - Fix insertion of signatures from a file. * Mon Nov 26 2012 Matthew Garrett - 0.99-9 - Add a patch needed for new shim builds php-Smarty-3.1.12-2.fc18 * Sun Nov 25 2012 Johan Cwiklinski - 3.1.12-2 - Really fix requires (see bz #700179 comment #30) * Sun Nov 25 2012 Johan Cwiklinski - 3.1.12-1 - Update to 3.1.12 - Remove CVE-2012-4437 patch that has been included in that release - Requires php-common instead of php python-biopython-1.60-1.fc18 * Sat Nov 17 2012 Alex Lancaster - 1.60-1 - Update to latest upstream (#835434) - Drop flex-related patch, no longer needed python-websockify-0.2.0-2.fc18 -- * Wed Oct 31 2012 Pádraig Brady - 0.2.0-2 - Remove hard dependency on numpy * Mon Oct 22 2012 Nikola Đipanov - 0.2.0-1 - Moving to the upstream version 0.2.0 sanlock-2.6-4.fc18 -- * Tue Nov 13 2012 David Teigland - 2.6-4 - systemd: add wdmd dependency for sanlock xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.14-1.fc18 - * Wed Nov 28 2012 Adam Jackson 2.20.14-1 - intel 2.20.14 Summary: Added Packages: 3 Removed Packages: 0 Upgraded Packages: 10 Compose finished at Wed Dec 5 13:52:18 UTC 2012 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
> Users that need help belong in Fedora and reporters that are at QA > can > just participate in the meeting while they "wait" That's not what https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-prerelease says. Also it's not what I believe is true - that #fedora-qa is used for pre-release issues discussion. > > > > > I personally feel very uneasy about rejecting/putting on hold all > > these guys just for the sake of our meeting. I think we can cope > > with the inconveniences (of e.g. a different channel) much better > > than the newcomers can. > > It was one guy why are you making so much deal out of this we have > more > users popping in regular meeting on our meeting channel than we have > had > all the times we have held the blocker meeting in QA ( and this is a > record holding release in the frequency of holding those meetings ) 1. It was not a single guy. It happens quite often, according to my memory. It was a single guy _in the last meeting_. 2. For every single guy that interrupts I assume there are 10 newcomers who do not dare to interrupt the meeting. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Sorted Blocker Display
- Original Message - > > > On 12/04/2012 11:27 PM, Tim Flink wrote: > > > We still have quite a few proposed blockers for F18 final and could > use > some more votes in bug. Instead of sending out email after email of > bugs that could use voting or testing, I wrote some code to help me > keep track of the bug states and display a reasonably up-to-date list > of the bugs. > http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/blockerbugs/sorted/sortedBlockers.html > I know it's ugly, isn't awesome at detecting votes in-bug and has > issues with non-ascii characters but IMHO, it works for now. I don't > want to put too much effort into the code behind this because I hope > we > won't need it for long but I'll probably make some small improvements > before F18 final is released. > For the first I'm not so sure we should be pushing people into voting > in bugs is a great idea since we are interrupting communication > between the reporter(s) and the maintainer(s) I'm somewhere in the middle - yes, it floods Bugzilla but on the other hand it's also communication between reporter (in many cases reporter sets blocker proposal) and maintainers (it's really valuable to know what they think if it's blocker or not - and we should propagate this role) and QA. And everything is in place, well documented. > In the end it will not save anytime since we *still* need to visit > the bug during the meeting for example if anyone attending the > meetings or wants to change his vote ( unless ofcourse you want to > create more bz spam ) that said how are you defining clear +/- 1? If it's raised on blocker bug meeting for more discussion, I'm ok with that and I don't see any problem. But for many bugs it could make the difference. And if we change vote on the meeting? Well, the latest comment with right explanation is the only valid. > For example the first bug in that list is not a blocker ( from my pov > and few other that have voted on that one ) The clear +1/-1 categorization is probably not the best although... Jaroslav > > JBG > > -- > 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: libudev?
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:11:46 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > [adamw@adam tmp]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libudev.so.1 > systemd-libs-195-8.fc18.x86_64 Ah, so udev has moved in with systemd. No doubt I can find a systemd-devel or systemd-libs-devel package so I can build my programs that need libudev. Thanks. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
new criterion proposal: core kickstart commands
In the discussion about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869978 we agreed that we should have a list of core kickstart commands that should definitely work for a Final release. All the options are documented here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Kickstart I tried to make a core selection. I had the following in mind: 1. Kickstarts are used for automation, therefore the most important commands related to automation must work (manual intervention is not fine). 2. Commands which are easily work-aroundable shouldn't be part of the core selection. Example: 'authconfig' kickstart command is just a wrapper around authconfig tool. You can issue the same command in %post and it should do the same. If %post works, it's trivial to work around nonfunctional authconfig kickstart command. The same applies for 'firewall', 'group', 'user' and others, it's trivial to run it in %post. 3. Some commands have plenty of options. We can't really define into the smallest detail which one of them must work and which doesn't have to. In this case a blocker-bug discussion is necessary to weight the importance of the option, its usage volume and the risk involved. I arrived at three different categories of the core set: == Setting up installation environment == network updates keyboard lang rootpw * 'network' and 'updates' are core commands, in same cases you really need them to start the installation. * 'keyboard' and 'lang' might probably be worked around in %pre, but it might be non-trivial for people. But I'm not firmly decided here. * 'rootpw' can be worked around in %post, but I consider it pretty basic command to work without problems == Partitioning the system == zerombr autopart clearpart part bootloader volgroup logvol * Partitioning is pretty major function of the installer and if doesn't work, it's just useless. I consider it core. * LVM support might be questioned. I decided to put it here, because LVM is the Fedora default and it might be pretty useful in some automated installation. We can discuss it though. * I haven't included some other partitioning commands, like 'btrfs', 'raid', or 'multipath'. They are useful and pretty, but I don't see them as really core. == Installation process == install upgrade repo %packages %pre %post poweroff reboot * 'install' and 'upgrade', because you need to be able to tell installer which mode to use * 'repo' because you need to set your mirror, or activate/deactive updates-testing, or something like that * '%packages' because package selection is one the core functions of kickstart * '%pre' and '%post' because it is often needed for some post-install setups (setting up sshd, creating accounts etc) and also can be used to work around broken commands * 'poweroff' and 'reboot' because in an automated environment these might be very important for you. Rebooting a computer that is 1000 miles away from you might not be an easy task. It might be a bit difficult to put this into criteria, I think there is no other way except than list the core commands. We can't say "everything related to partitioning", because then people would argue "btrfs" command is included. Maybe we can create a separate page/subpage related to kickstart core commands and just link to it from the criteria document. Comments very welcome. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
New Tester Introduction
Hi, I'm Lukas Brabec (lbrabec) and I'm new Red Hat intern in Fedora QA. I'm former user of Gentoo and Arch. I like coffee, beer, rock and metal. I hope my bug reports will help bring Fedora to brighter tomorrows. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 06:45:08AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 12/04/2012 05:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > >Slightly off topic, I'm kinda liking system-storage-manager new to F18 and > >installable from the live cd. > >yum install system-storage-manager > >ssm list > > > >And you'll get a listing of all devices, pools, volumes, and their mount > >points, better layout all in one place rather than having to go dig for info > >with multiple tools: fdisk, df, pvscan, lvscan, etc. > > > > > You are right ... ssm is nice. I wonder if there is a gui version planned? You mean what mount used to show before systemd? Sometimes, though I will FREELY admit this is probably just old curmudgeon-ness, it seems that we keep getting new tools to do what the old ones did. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Spike: Willow, tell 'em what I did. Willow: You said you were gonna kill me, then Buffy. Spike: Yes, bad, but let's skip that part and get to the part where I couldn't bite you. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
On 12/05/2012 12:02 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: Next anyone of us can just explain instead that we are in the middle of blocker bug meeting I don't like the idea that people should be put on hold, probably for several hours, just because we are having a meeting. #fedora-qa is referenced from https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-prerelease . People arrive and ask, because we advise them to do so. They might not be willing or able to wait several hours. Some of them will have their issues unsolved and will feel disappointed. There are a lot of guys in #fedora-qa that would be able to help them, ourselves included (it's very doable to be holding a meeting in one channel and helping someone in another channel). Users that need help belong in Fedora and reporters that are at QA can just participate in the meeting while they "wait" I personally feel very uneasy about rejecting/putting on hold all these guys just for the sake of our meeting. I think we can cope with the inconveniences (of e.g. a different channel) much better than the newcomers can. It was one guy why are you making so much deal out of this we have more users popping in regular meeting on our meeting channel than we have had all the times we have held the blocker meeting in QA ( and this is a record holding release in the frequency of holding those meetings ) JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Sound devices no longer accessible by audio group
On 12/04/2012 10:12 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: On 12/04/2012 04:07 AM, Brendan Jones wrote: On 12/04/2012 10:39 AM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote: Since the latest yum update I have to run audio programs as root in order to access an audio device. Previously being a member of audio group was sufficient. Running audio programs as root should not be necessary and is almost never encouraged. Can you please file a bug outlining the steps you took to diagnose this problem? Perhaps pulseaudio was run as root at one time leaving a /tmp/.esd1000 file with root permissions lying around? Or perhaps it was a MIDI problem. Please file a bug. rm -R /tmp/.esd* seems to have fixed the problem, which may have been caused by the cpu/motherboard swap. Running pulseaudio as root is not recommended unless you have a very good reason to do so. Surprising how often this comes up. I almost always recommend disabling this module in /etc/pulse/default.pa for this reason -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Sorted Blocker Display
On 12/04/2012 11:27 PM, Tim Flink wrote: We still have quite a few proposed blockers for F18 final and could use some more votes in bug. Instead of sending out email after email of bugs that could use voting or testing, I wrote some code to help me keep track of the bug states and display a reasonably up-to-date list of the bugs. http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/blockerbugs/sorted/sortedBlockers.html I know it's ugly, isn't awesome at detecting votes in-bug and has issues with non-ascii characters but IMHO, it works for now. I don't want to put too much effort into the code behind this because I hope we won't need it for long but I'll probably make some small improvements before F18 final is released. For the first I'm not so sure we should be pushing people into voting in bugs is a great idea since we are interrupting communication between the reporter(s) and the maintainer(s) In the end it will not save anytime since we *still* need to visit the bug during the meeting for example if anyone attending the meetings or wants to change his vote ( unless ofcourse you want to create more bz spam ) that said how are you defining clear +/- 1? For example the first bug in that list is not a blocker ( from my pov and few other that have voted on that one ) JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
> Next anyone of us can just explain instead that we are in the middle > of > blocker bug meeting I don't like the idea that people should be put on hold, probably for several hours, just because we are having a meeting. #fedora-qa is referenced from https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-prerelease . People arrive and ask, because we advise them to do so. They might not be willing or able to wait several hours. Some of them will have their issues unsolved and will feel disappointed. There are a lot of guys in #fedora-qa that would be able to help them, ourselves included (it's very doable to be holding a meeting in one channel and helping someone in another channel). I personally feel very uneasy about rejecting/putting on hold all these guys just for the sake of our meeting. I think we can cope with the inconveniences (of e.g. a different channel) much better than the newcomers can. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Rename anaconda to cryptoconda?
Dne Út 4. prosince 2012 09:39:03, Adam Williamson napsal(a): > On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 11:06 +0100, Karel Volný wrote: > > Dne Po 3. prosince 2012 23:47:14, Adam Williamson napsal(a): > > > This gets into a very general discussion, but there is a fairly solid > > > case to be made that excessively aggressive behaviour on mailing lists > > > doesn't just discourage those it's aimed at, > > > > I wish it had worked ... discouraging developers that do things that users > > do not like would be a good thing ;-) but sometimes I've got the opposite > > feeling - the more criticism, the more "yes, I must be doing that right, > > they burnt Giordano Bruno on the stake for the truth, now they are trying > > to burn me" > That's, er, a) completely unsubstantiated YMMV ... > and b) not what I said. > 'Doesn't just discourage X but Y' means 'it discourages both X and Y'. > It doesn't mean 'it discourages Y but not X'. understood ... I should have made clear that I'm focusing just on the "it discourages/does not discourage X" part regardless of what happens to Y > > > but a substantial number of potential contributors who do not feel > > > comfortable jumping into such an environment. > > > > hm, and would they feel comfortable jumping to an environment where they > > hear "go away we don't want you"? > > > > shouldn't the reaction be more like "please keep your swearing at home" > > than "go away, don't test Fedora"? > > Ideally, for sure. But what if someone refuses to change their > communication style? then the answer should not be in the same (or equally discouraging) style ... had I mentioned already that I like how do _you_ handle the flames? and as for the OP, we may talk about banning (which is a solution that I do not like) or partial list moderation (if there's someone willing to do that ...) - or anything else how to improve the _communication_ but not how to reduce the user/tester/developer base K. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) xmpp ka...@jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
As far as getting F18 installed, some of this is OBE because I used fedup and it worked just fine so I now have a live F18 system for testing. However, I would like the installer to work and of all the parts that I consider critical, storage configuration is first in line. I believe that the best way I can duplicate the problem and get some documentation is to replicate it virtually and get some screenshots. I wonder if the remote display still works? I used that in the past. Now, if only I can remember how to do it. On 12/05/2012 02:41 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I am not sure how things are suppose to work but I do not see ANY LVs In Manual Partitioning, on the left side, you do not have an +Unknown listing located under -New Fedora 18 Installation? Or there are no LV's listed? I will go back and double check but I do not remember seeing an LVs. And, yes, I want to re-use previously allocated LVs for my install. There are regular old partitions which I can use for /boot but all of the rest of my disk space is in PVs. What do you get for pvscan and lvscan? Are there inactive LVs? I will need to check. IMO, the whole way storage is being handled in F18 needs to be rethought! Guessing how to do something should never happen. I agree. But I think in your case the trail is leading to a bug not flawed design. I am sure this is a bug. However, I would like some button or whatever "earlier" in the process that says "I know what I am doing, let me manually configure existing partitions and/or LVs or allocate new ones on mount points. Gene -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Manual Partitioning and LVM, Re: Puzzled
On 12/04/2012 05:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: You'll need to make sure you've manually created an LV because neither anaconda autopart or Manual Partitioning can create an LV from available VG free space. By this I mean, create the LV outside of anaconda. Slightly off topic, I'm kinda liking system-storage-manager new to F18 and installable from the live cd. yum install system-storage-manager ssm list And you'll get a listing of all devices, pools, volumes, and their mount points, better layout all in one place rather than having to go dig for info with multiple tools: fdisk, df, pvscan, lvscan, etc. You are right ... ssm is nice. I wonder if there is a gui version planned? Gene -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
On 12/05/2012 09:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 08:37 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 12/05/2012 03:21 AM, Tim Flink wrote: We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to something manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting! Note the IRC channel change - doing the blocker meeting in #fedora-qa is far too disruptive to other testing work that goes on. I've not seen anyone complain about it being disruptive. Does anyone here on the list feel that it's to disruptive? In two recent meetings, we've had people pop up with questions about 18 Beta while the meeting is going on, and had to answer them mid-meeting (confusing the meeting and polluting the logs) or direct them elsewhere, neither of which is a great option. You felt the need to answer them instead of asking them to hold off all questions until after the meeting. On last meeting I was about to do it myself on the last meeting but since you had started a dialog with him I decide not to. JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
On 12/05/2012 08:56 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: On 12/05/2012 03:21 AM, Tim Flink wrote: We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to something manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting! Note the IRC channel change - doing the blocker meeting in #fedora-qa is far too disruptive to other testing work that goes on. I've not seen anyone complain about it being disruptive. Does anyone here on the list feel that it's to disruptive? Definitely: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-12-03/f18final-blocker-review-1.2.2012-12-03-17.25.log.html (20:06:46) I hardly qualify one guy as a measurement and from the looks of it it was his first time on the channel and we have people dropping into the meetings channel like that all the time. Next anyone of us can just explain instead that we are in the middle of blocker bug meeting The question is just what is the best channel to use. I say we should stick to QA that's where is the most likely hood for more participation in the meetings. Fedora bugzappers is a dead process and holding this in meeting-X does not make much sense either. JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 08:37 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 12/05/2012 03:21 AM, Tim Flink wrote: > > We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to something > > manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting! > > Note the IRC channel change - doing the blocker meeting in #fedora-qa > > is far too disruptive to other testing work that goes on. > > I've not seen anyone complain about it being disruptive. > > Does anyone here on the list feel that it's to disruptive? In two recent meetings, we've had people pop up with questions about 18 Beta while the meeting is going on, and had to answer them mid-meeting (confusing the meeting and polluting the logs) or direct them elsewhere, neither of which is a great option. -- 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: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
> On 12/05/2012 03:21 AM, Tim Flink wrote: > > We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to > > something > > manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting! > > Note the IRC channel change - doing the blocker meeting in > > #fedora-qa > > is far too disruptive to other testing work that goes on. > > I've not seen anyone complain about it being disruptive. > > Does anyone here on the list feel that it's to disruptive? Definitely: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-12-03/f18final-blocker-review-1.2.2012-12-03-17.25.log.html (20:06:46) The question is just what is the best channel to use. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Blocker Bug Voting and Conversation
> Is it the meeting itself which you find helpful or the discussion and > information during the review meetings? Could you see asynchronous > conversation (exact method TBD) being as useful? The discussion is very helpful. It can be asynchronous, of course. It won't be as efficient, but that's a trade-off for the possibility to participate any time. I'm not sure which way is better, but it's definitely worth trying them all out. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-12-05 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Final Blocker Bug Review #2
On 12/05/2012 03:21 AM, Tim Flink wrote: We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to something manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting! Note the IRC channel change - doing the blocker meeting in #fedora-qa is far too disruptive to other testing work that goes on. I've not seen anyone complain about it being disruptive. Does anyone here on the list feel that it's to disruptive? JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
