Re: 'Nice to have' process is now 'Freeze exception' process, improvements to blocker / freeze exception tracker aliases
There was a very solid consensus that the old scheme sucked and the final form of the new proposal was miles better, and this is not the first time the topic has come up (there are various proposals in the list archives). So I decided to go ahead and Just Do It, putting the proposal into 'production' today. I have adjusted the tracker bugs themselves, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting , and renamed https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_nth_bug_process to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process and adjusted it. I have also made the obvious changes to the relatively large number of other wiki pages that link to and talk about the 'nth' / 'freeze exception' process: see my Wiki edit history for those changes. This would deserve to go to test-announce, I think. Any objections? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Replace MySQL with MariaDB
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Yeah, 'all the compatibility testing' is something of a vague idea to pin down :) Why can´t Fedora ship both? let users decide whether to use MySQL Community edition or MariaDB. After all it isn´t like size is an issue, given the DVD installer and repos. In fact, F18 ships with both Gnome 3 and the Gnome 2.x fork, Mate. Why not imitate that approach and add MariaDB IN ADDITION TO not instead of. For MariaDB supporters, it´d be a big win Fedora adds MariaDB to its repos. However I suspect the objective is to get headlines like Fedora drops MySQL for MariaDB which has other, more political, implications. I favor freedom, let users decide. Just my $0.02 FC -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Replace MySQL with MariaDB
El 23/01/2013 08:18, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com escribió: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Yeah, 'all the compatibility testing' is something of a vague idea to pin down :) Why can´t Fedora ship both? let users decide whether to use MySQL Community edition or MariaDB. After all it isn´t like size is an issue, given the DVD installer and repos. In fact, F18 ships with both Gnome 3 and the Gnome 2.x fork, Mate. Why not imitate that approach and add MariaDB IN ADDITION TO not instead of. For MariaDB supporters, it´d be a big win Fedora adds MariaDB to its repos. However I suspect the objective is to get headlines like Fedora drops MySQL for MariaDB which has other, more political, implications. I favor freedom, let users decide. Hi all. I believe we should have a reasonable test cycle. MariaDB is good choice for politicals reasons, but We do not want to break things Just my $0.02 FC -- 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: Proposed F19 Feature: Replace MySQL with MariaDB
Dne St 23. ledna 2013 09:45:28, Fernando Cassia napsal(a): On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Yeah, 'all the compatibility testing' is something of a vague idea to pin down :) Why can´t Fedora ship both? let users decide whether to use MySQL Community edition or MariaDB. because resources are limited do you volunteer to maintain and test MySQL? For MariaDB supporters, it´d be a big win Fedora adds MariaDB to its repos. However I suspect the objective is to get headlines like Fedora drops MySQL for MariaDB which has other, more political, implications. too wild imaginations ... please, try taking a look at the informations available about some CVEs, for example then try to step in the shoes of the package maintainer and tell us what would *you* do you really think that such decisions are driven by the newspaper headlines which will be forgotten the next day after being published? 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
Anyone else seeing yum running slow in rawhide?
For about the last month or so it seems like yum has been running much slower than in the past. Previously I had seen something similar when running debug kernels, but that isn't the case now. I am seeing a lot of time being used for wait, but there is still a lot of idle time as well. So I suspect the bottleneck is disk I/O. I am not seeing this on an f18 machine that I tested with the current rawhide kernel. mdadm appears to be the same version on both machines. So it doesn't seem likely that an mdadm change was responsible. Was there any change to yum that would have potentially caused this? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Anyone else seeing yum running slow in rawhide?
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:01:32 -0600 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: Was there any change to yum that would have potentially caused this? I'm convinced there is a speed increase. Even with createrepo rebuilding a local repo. -- Regards, Frank ln -s http//www.frankly3d.com http://www.frankly3d.eu -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 16 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 16 Security updates need testing: Age URL 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0723/thunderbird-17.0.2-1.fc16 43 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-20157/libproxy-0.4.11-1.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0915/moodle-2.1.10-1.fc16 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0896/rubygem-rack-1.3.0-3.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1130/php-symfony2-Yaml-2.0.22-1.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1233/rhncfg-5.10.36-1.fc16 42 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-20236/rssh-2.3.4-1.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1257/libexif-0.6.21-2.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1274/xen-4.1.4-3.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1289/jakarta-commons-httpclient-3.1-12.fc16 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0934/qemu-0.15.1-9.fc16 201 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10314/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc16 121 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14654/tor-0.2.2.39-1600.fc16 14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19347/cups-1.5.4-12.fc16 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1301/ndjbdns-1.05.6-1.fc16 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0894/ettercap-0.7.5-3.fc16.1.20120906gitc796e5 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0935/samba4-4.0.0-39.alpha16.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0468/proftpd-1.3.4b-5.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0992/asterisk-1.8.20.0-1.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1122/drupal6-6.28-1.fc16 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1092/drupal7-7.19-1.fc16 The following Fedora 16 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1257/libexif-0.6.21-2.fc16 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0723/thunderbird-17.0.2-1.fc16 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0632/perl-5.14.3-204.fc16 267 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-6994/upower-0.9.16-1.fc16 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 16 updates-testing maven-3.0.3-16.1.fc16 ocspd-1.5.1-0.13.rc1.fc16 python-fedora-0.3.31-1.fc16 Details about builds: maven-3.0.3-16.1.fc16 (FEDORA-2013-1352) Java project management and project comprehension tool Update Information: This update adds maven-local virtual provide to allow packagers of Maven artifacts to share the same RPM spec file between multiple Fedora releases. ChangeLog: * Tue Jan 22 2013 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com - 3.0.3-16.1 - Provide maven-local * Tue Dec 13 2011 Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com - 3.0.3-16 - Add maven2-common-poms to Requires ocspd-1.5.1-0.13.rc1.fc16 (FEDORA-2013-1314) OpenCA OCSP Daemon Update Information: * Mon Jan 21 2013 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch 1.5.1-0.13.rc1 - Patch podsyntax to fix man page pod syntax. - Patch badalgorcast to fix a bad X509_ALGOR cast. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901793 ChangeLog: * Mon Jan 21 2013 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch 1.5.1-0.13.rc1 - Patch podsyntax to fix man page pod syntax. - Patch badalgorcast to fix a bad X509_ALGOR cast. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901793 * Fri Nov 16 2012 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch 1.5.1-0.12.rc1 - Use new systemd scriptlet macros. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850238 References: [ 1 ] Bug #901793 - Crash at startup https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901793 python-fedora-0.3.31-1.fc16 (FEDORA-2013-1312) Python modules for talking to Fedora Infrastructure Services Update Information: * Fixes a problem with soprovidercsrf if the database doesn't set an encoding * Fixes an issue with the login templates if the template is being
Fedora 17 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 17 Security updates need testing: Age URL 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1341/tinymce-spellchecker-2.0.5-8.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1076/drupal7-7.19-1.fc17 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0834/ettercap-0.7.5-3.fc17.1.20120906gitc796e5 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0968/moodle-2.2.7-1.fc17 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0839/rubygem-multi_xml-0.4.1-4.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1189/jakarta-commons-httpclient-3.1-12.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1194/axis-1.4-19.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1229/rhncfg-5.10.36-1.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1244/libexif-0.6.21-2.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1114/mingw-freetype-2.4.11-1.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1286/python-tw2-jquery-2.0.3-5.fc17 121 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14650/tor-0.2.2.39-1700.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1320/dnsmasq-2.65-2.fc17 18 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0210/vdsm-4.10.0-13.fc17 18 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0231/ca-certificates-2012.87-1.fc17 201 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17 14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19606/cups-1.5.4-18.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1204/ndjbdns-1.05.6-1.fc17 43 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-20092/libproxy-0.4.11-1.fc17 14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0455/fedora-business-cards-1-0.1.beta1.fc17 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0696/perl-5.14.3-220.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1002/zabbix-1.8.16-1.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1039/drupal6-6.28-1.fc17 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0859/samba4-4.0.0-59alpha18.fc17 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0861/rubygem-rack-1.4.0-3.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1269/xen-4.1.4-3.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1083/corosync-2.3.0-1.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1025/kernel-3.7.3-101.fc17 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0971/qemu-1.0.1-3.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0985/php-symfony2-Yaml-2.1.7-1.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0994/asterisk-10.12.0-1.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0483/proftpd-1.3.4b-5.fc17 The following Fedora 17 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1320/dnsmasq-2.65-2.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1244/libexif-0.6.21-2.fc17 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1236/koji-1.7.1-2.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1140/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.18-1.fc17 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0984/perl-Net-HTTP-6.05-1.fc17 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0776/gdb-7.4.50.20120120-54.fc17 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0696/perl-5.14.3-220.fc17 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0645/shadow-utils-4.1.5.1-2.fc17 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0694/perl-5.14.3-219.fc17 153 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-12509/PackageKit-0.7.6-1.fc17 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 17 updates-testing cowsay-beefymiracle-1.0-1.fc17 dnsmasq-2.65-2.fc17 ghc-rpm-macros-0.15.11-1.fc17 iowatcher-1.0-1.fc17 libqb-0.14.4-1.fc17 logwatch-7.4.0-23.20130102svn127.fc17 mach-1.0.2-1.fc17 maven-3.0.4-14.1.fc17 mingw-polyclipping-5.0.3-3.fc17 ocspd-1.5.1-0.13.rc1.fc17 okular-4.9.5-2.fc17 opensips-1.8.2-3.fc17 perl-User-Utmp-1.8-1.fc17 perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3-1.08-2.fc17 plantuml-7951-1.fc17 python-fedora-0.3.31-1.fc17 python-pkgwat-api-0.5-1.fc17 quassel-0.8.0-1.fc17 rtpproxy-1.2.1-10.git2121113.fc17 tinymce-spellchecker-2.0.5-8.fc17 tuxguitar-1.2-10.fc17 whatsup-1.14-1.fc17 yadex-1.7.0-24.fc17 Details about builds: cowsay-beefymiracle-1.0-1.fc17 (FEDORA-2013-1372) Cowsay file for the Beefy Miracle Update Information: Provides a cowsay file for His Holiness the Beefy Miracle. It can be invoked
Re: Anyone else seeing yum running slow in rawhide?
On 01/23/2013 11:01 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: For about the last month or so it seems like yum has been running much slower than in the past. Previously I had seen something similar when running debug kernels, but that isn't the case now. I am seeing a lot of time being used for wait, but there is still a lot of idle time as well. So I suspect the bottleneck is disk I/O. I am not seeing this on an f18 machine that I tested with the current rawhide kernel. mdadm appears to be the same version on both machines. So it doesn't seem likely that an mdadm change was responsible. Was there any change to yum that would have potentially caused this? I am seeing long waits also and the disk light is solid red during those waits. -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Anyone else seeing yum running slow in rawhide?
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:01:32 -0600 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: For about the last month or so it seems like yum has been running much slower than in the past. Previously I had seen something similar when running debug kernels, but that isn't the case now. I am seeing a lot of time being used for wait, but there is still a lot of idle time as well. So I suspect the bottleneck is disk I/O. I am not seeing this on an f18 machine that I tested with the current rawhide kernel. mdadm appears to be the same version on both machines. So it doesn't seem likely that an mdadm change was responsible. Was there any change to yum that would have potentially caused this? I'm not seeing any slowdowns that I can tell off hand. Is the machine on wireless? I have had issues with the iwlwifi driver being slow or locking up. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Anyone else seeing yum running slow in rawhide?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:32:08 -0700, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Is the machine on wireless? I have had issues with the iwlwifi driver being slow or locking up. No. I have a local mirror on that machine for my home machines. The slow down seems to be especially noticeable while doing dependency checking. I am going to try rebuilding the rpmdb and do some testing with rpm to see if it appears slow as well. I also checked to see if there was any run away logging. (I have had selinux warnings slow things down a few times.) I might also check on journalling options. Right now I am using journal_data and maybe some change has made that more painful. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Proposing Blocker/Freeze Exception Bugs Through the Blocker Tracking App
After FUDCon last weekend and some other conversations that I've had (mostly over IRC), we're planning to implement a more user-friendly bug submission system in the blocker tracking app. I put the details that I have now in the form of a blog post [1] if anyone is interested. The version that will be completed in time for F19 testing will be pretty simple, in the interest of actually getting it done in time. I don't think that we'll have any great criteria display or integration but that is certainly on the wish list. Everything is still very much in the early stages of planning, so constructive comments and suggestions (or contributions) would certainly be appreciated. Tim [1] http://tirfa.com/proposing-blocker-bugs.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Using flags for blocker bug tracking
Hey, folks. So I just wanted to kick off a discussion on the merits or otherwise of using flags for tracking blocker bugs. If you're not aware how Bugzilla flags work, http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.4/en/html/flags-overview.html gives an overview. A flag is just a named attribute of the bug with four states: unset, ?, + and -. This obviously lends itself nicely to blocker tracking: setting a bug to ? would 'propose' it as a blocker, setting it to + would 'accept' it as a blocker, and setting it to - would 'reject' it as a blocker. The main benefit of flags as I see them: 1) 'Proposed' state is much clearer 2) Removes reliance on whiteboard/keywords field 3) May simplify code needed in tools that parse blocker state (e.g. blocker bug webapp) There are two ways we could do flags that I can see: 1) Create a set of six unversioned flags, using the name format we came up with for the blocker aliases (AlphaBlocker, AlphaFreezeException, BetaBlocker...), and use the Version: field to track the version being blocked (so a bug with Version: 18 and AlphaBlocker+ is an accepted blocker for F18 Alpha, a bug with Version: 19 and BetaFreezeException? is a proposed blocker for F19 Beta, etc) 2) Create six versioned flags for each release, one release ahead of time (as we do now for blocker bugs); mark flags for finished releases as 'inactive' (this means they don't appear in the BZ UI but can still be searched on, which would be exactly what we'd want) 1) is a bit simpler and less work on the BZ team (and stress on the database), but relies on the Version: field for blocker/FE bugs being handled carefully; sometimes it gets changed on bugs, and sometimes inappropriately. So that could be a danger. 2) is safer but does require us to go and get flags created for every Fedora release, and leave a bunch of inactive flags in the archive. Drawbacks of flags: 1) It's probably a slightly less well-understood mechanism than tracker bugs 2) A change from the process we've used for a long time - will need some rework of documentation and education of devel, QA, releng 3) Bugzilla doesn't draw you a 'nice' tree view of bugs with a given flag set like it does for bugs blocking a given tracker (though this isn't a significant factor really now we have the blocker webapp) I don't have a specific recommendation, really I just wanted to kick off a discussion and see how people feel about the possibility, and whether anyone has anything to add to the pro/minus columns. This would likely be F20 stuff if we were going to go for it. It's also worth considering the possibility that blocker tracking could be moved out of BZ itself and into the blocker webapp; this has several advantages, like better integration with the webapp, reducing BZ spam, and giving us a mechanism for asynchronous review of blockers without BZ spam. So that may possibly be the best option, but it depends on someone (hi Tim!) having time to write the code. Still, it's one of Tim's long-term plans, and people may feel it's best to stick with tracker bugs until we're ready to go to that plan instead of using flags as an intermediate step. -- 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: [SOLVED] Re: Yum Upgrade -- A couple of issues
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:14 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote: Yes, the .xsession-errors (quoted under the message) was it. I feel stupid now. I looked into running services and indeed polkit and upower had failed state. # yum reinstall polkit\* upower # reboot fixed the issue completely. Sorry for the spam. I hope at least that this helps someone, should they encounter the same problem. It sounds like you missed the instruction to do the upgrade with SELinux disabled (though I thought we'd fixed that bug - apparently not). -- 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
Rawhide heads up: Booting in enforcing mode doesn't seem to work
To reboot I need to use the enforcing=0 kernel parameter. Switch to enforcing after booting seems to work. This is filed as bug 903486 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903486). I have also tried the selinux build from today and see the same thing, so tomorrow's rawhide will have the same problem. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
