rpm scriptlet testing
Rpm scriptlet testing is not expected to be automated in the near future (though eventually it really ought to be). I can test the PRE and POST scriptlets by a yum reinstall. PREUN and POSTUN are both harder to test, and more insidious since bugs appear even when updating to a fixed version. The F19 release version of usbmuxd has a PREUN bug, so we will soon have a long thread in the users list with stable users dealing with it. I don't know how to test PREUN and POSTUN short of either having an available lower version to downgrade to (maybe impossible in rawhide) or removing and reinstalling the rpm with --force (maybe a bad idea if the running system depends on it). What is the best way to test all four scriptlets manually, since we won't have automation for it soon? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 20 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing: Age URL 14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17828/davfs2-1.4.7-3.fc20 13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17923/fedmsg-0.7.1-2.fc20 13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17866/chicken-4.8.0.4-4.fc20 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18323/elinks-0.12-0.36.pre6.fc20 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18300/xen-4.3.0-7.fc20 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18314/zabbix-2.0.8-3.fc20 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18579/mod_fcgid-2.3.9-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18703/dropbear-2013.59-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18705/phpMyAdmin-3.5.8.2-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18715/qemu-1.6.0-10.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18866/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18877/libtar-1.2.11-27.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18867/kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18840/ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc20,python-djblets-0.7.20-1.fc20 The following Fedora 20 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17976/elfutils-0.157-1.fc20 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18161/samba-4.1.0-0.8.rc4.fc20 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18191/initial-setup-0.3.9-1.fc20 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18174/perl-threads-1.89-1.fc20 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18154/perl-Getopt-Long-2.42-1.fc20 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18058/groff-1.22.2-8.fc20 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18267/dnsmasq-2.67-0.8.rc2.fc20 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18084/krb5-1.11.3-21.fc20 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18334/keyutils-1.5.8-1.fc20 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18298/ibus-1.5.4-2.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18450/python-urlgrabber-3.9.1-32.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18447/createrepo-0.9.9-23.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18435/uboot-tools-2013.10-0.5.rc4.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18464/perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.20-7.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18462/libwacom-0.8-1.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18470/xkeyboard-config-2.10.1-1.fc20 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18514/langtable-0.0.16-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18709/mdadm-3.3-3.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18759/xorg-x11-glamor-0.5.1-1.20131009gitba209eee.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18741/python-meh-0.27-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18739/libxklavier-5.4-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18751/libdb-5.3.28-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18714/pykickstart-1.99.42-1.fc20,anaconda-20.23-1.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18941/PackageKit-0.8.11-3.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18939/gnome-settings-daemon-3.10.0-3.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18949/python-iniparse-0.4-9.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18870/curl-7.32.0-3.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18868/gnome-abrt-0.3.2-1.fc20,abrt-2.1.8-1.fc20,libreport-2.1.8-1.fc20,satyr-0.10-1.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18872/fontconfig-2.11.0-1.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18877/libtar-1.2.11-27.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18894/mdadm-3.3-4.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18866/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc20 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 20 updates-testing 389-ds-base-1.3.2.2-1.fc20 PackageKit-0.8.11-3.fc20 anaconda-20.25-1.fc20 cifs-utils-6.2-3.fc20 cups-filters-1.0.40-2.fc20 enblend-4.1.2-1.fc20 gnome-settings-daemon-3.10.0-3.fc20 heisenbug-kde-theme-19.90.4-1.fc20 ibus-typing-booster-1.2.5-1.fc20 libguestfs-1.23.30-1.fc20 librepo-1.2.1-3.bc2c8a5.fc20 perl-IO-Socket-SSL-1.95.5-1.fc20 pykickstart-1.99.42-1.fc20 pyshp-1.2.0-1.fc20 python-blivet-0.23-1.fc20 python-iniparse-0.4-9.fc20 python-wsme-0.5b5-2.fc20 Details about builds: ==
Re: Upstream packages v.s. Fedora packages
On 10/12/13 01:09, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ed Greshko wrote: > >> On 10/11/13 18:28, Caolán McNamara wrote: >>> You are probably correct in that it won't get much of my attention >>> because there are thousands of things that need attention and my focus >>> is necessarily primarily on the GTK backends and GNOME3 integration. >> OK. I am probably one of the few people out here in Asia using KDE. >> I suppose I'll have to live with using the upstream stuff for now. > Or, uninstall/disable the kde integration bits, > > yum remove libreoffice-kde Strange as it may seem, I did not know the existance of that package. Also strange, it wasn't ever suggested as a "workaround" in the bugzilla. Yeah, that works. Not sure yet if this causes any major loss of functionality Thanks Ed -- Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and self-serving posts -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 18 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing: Age URL 174 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-6117/eucalyptus-3.2.2-1.fc18 22 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17112/hplip-3.13.9-2.fc18 21 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17195/spice-gtk-0.18-3.fc18 17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17431/thunderbird-17.0.9-1.fc18 15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17635/wireshark-1.10.2-4.fc18 13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17853/davfs2-1.4.7-3.fc18 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17912/chicken-4.8.0.4-4.fc18 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17904/fedmsg-0.7.1-2.fc18 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18251/polarssl-1.2.9-1.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18401/fping-3.5-3.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18347/elinks-0.12-0.33.pre6.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18373/xen-4.2.3-3.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18348/zabbix-2.0.8-3.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18606/dropbear-2013.59-1.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18647/gnupg-1.4.15-1.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18686/mod_fcgid-2.3.9-1.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18802/phpMyAdmin-3.5.8.2-1.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18785/libtar-1.2.11-25.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18822/kernel-3.11.4-101.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18774/icu-49.1.1-12.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18814/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc18,libgpg-error-1.11-1.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18911/ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc18,python-djblets-0.7.20-1.fc18 The following Fedora 18 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 244 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-2192/nautilus-3.6.3-5.fc18 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18050/gdb-7.5.1-43.fc18 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18164/perl-threads-1.89-1.fc18 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18276/dnsmasq-2.65-8.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18402/keyutils-1.5.8-1.fc18 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18380/ibus-1.5.4-2.fc18 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18392/nss-softokn-3.15.2-1.fc18,nss-util-3.15.2-1.fc18,nss-3.15.2-1.fc18,nspr-4.10.1-1.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18607/libxklavier-5.4-1.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18622/selinux-policy-3.11.1-106.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18590/usbmuxd-1.0.8-9.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18680/akonadi-1.10.3-1.fc18,qt-4.8.5-10.fc18 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18383/thunderbird-enigmail-1.6-1.fc18,thunderbird-24.0-3.fc18,thunderbird-lightning-2.6-1.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18822/kernel-3.11.4-101.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18814/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc18,libgpg-error-1.11-1.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18774/icu-49.1.1-12.fc18 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18815/sane-backends-1.0.24-1.fc18 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 18 updates-testing ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc18 dwm-6.0-7.fc18 guacamole-client-0.8.3-4.fc18 ibus-typing-booster-1.2.5-1.fc18 nodejs-node-static-0.7.1-2.fc18 perl-PAR-Packer-1.015-1.fc18 perl-Term-ShellUI-0.92-2.fc18 python-djblets-0.7.20-1.fc18 python-flask-restless-0.12.0-1.fc18 transifex-client-0.9-4.fc18 Details about builds: ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc18 (FEDORA-2013-18911) Web-based code review tool Update Information: Review Board 1.6.19 and 1.7.15 fix a few issues in the API where users could access certain data they should not have been able to access, if using the Local Sites feature, invite-only groups, or private repositories. It also fixes cases with invite-only groups where the group name and list of private review requests would show up on some pages (though the review requests themselves were not accessible). These issues do not affect most of the installations out there, but we strongly recommend upgrading anyway. There are no known cases of anyone exploiting these bugs, and in fact we discovered these internally while buil
Fedora 19 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 57 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-14814/python-glanceclient-0.9.0-3.fc19 22 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17121/vino-3.8.1-3.fc19 13 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17836/davfs2-1.4.7-3.fc19 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17925/fedmsg-0.7.1-2.fc19 7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18228/polarssl-1.2.9-1.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18404/elinks-0.12-0.35.pre6.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18378/xen-4.2.3-3.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18351/zabbix-2.0.8-3.fc19 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18493/qemu-1.4.2-12.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18593/dropbear-2013.59-1.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18638/mod_fcgid-2.3.9-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18794/phpMyAdmin-3.5.8.2-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18807/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18808/libtar-1.2.11-26.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18771/icu-50.1.2-9.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18931/ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc19,python-djblets-0.7.20-1.fc19 The following Fedora 19 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18128/createrepo-0.9.9-23.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18369/keyutils-1.5.8-1.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18357/ibus-1.5.4-2.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18603/libxklavier-5.4-1.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18619/cpio-2.11-21.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18639/python-2.7.5-8.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18677/gnome-online-accounts-3.8.4.1-1.fc19 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18596/langtable-0.0.16-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18935/gtk2-2.24.22-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18936/curl-7.29.0-12.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18910/cups-1.6.4-2.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18924/gnome-abrt-0.3.2-1.fc19,abrt-2.1.8-1.fc19,libreport-2.1.8-1.fc19,satyr-0.10-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18906/gtk3-3.8.5-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18797/usbmuxd-1.0.8-10.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18808/libtar-1.2.11-26.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18807/gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18771/icu-50.1.2-9.fc19 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 19 updates-testing 389-ds-base-1.3.1.12-1.fc19 Judy-1.0.5-7.fc19 ReviewBoard-1.7.15-1.fc19 abrt-2.1.8-1.fc19 cifs-utils-6.2-3.fc19 cups-1.6.4-2.fc19 curl-7.29.0-12.fc19 derby-10.9.1.0-5.fc19 dwm-6.0-7.fc19 eclipse-mylyn-3.9.1-3.fc19 firmware-tools-2.1.15-1.fc19.6 geary-0.4.0-1.fc19 gnome-abrt-0.3.2-1.fc19 gtk2-2.24.22-1.fc19 gtk3-3.8.5-1.fc19 guacamole-client-0.8.3-4.fc19 ibus-typing-booster-1.2.5-1.fc19 kate-plugin-cpphelper-0.9.6-1.fc19 libreport-2.1.8-1.fc19 nodejs-node-static-0.7.1-2.fc19 perl-PAR-Packer-1.015-1.fc19 perl-Term-ShellUI-0.92-2.fc19 python-djblets-0.7.20-1.fc19 python-flask-restless-0.12.0-1.fc19 rubygem-capillary-1.0.3-3.fc19 satyr-0.10-1.fc19 timeline-0.20.0-3.fc19 trafficserver-3.2.5-4.fc19 transifex-client-0.9-4.fc19 Details about builds: 389-ds-base-1.3.1.12-1.fc19 (FEDORA-2013-18914) 389 Directory Server (base) Update Information: 389-ds-base-1.3.1.12 release - several bug fixes ChangeLog: * Thu Oct 10 2013 Noriko Hosoi - 1.3.1.12-1 - release 1.3.1.12 - Ticket 47513 - tmpfiles.d references /var/lock when they should reference /run/loc - Ticket 47551 - logconv: -V does not produce unindexed search report - Ticket 53 - Need to update supported locales - Ticket 47517 - memory leak in range searches and other various leaks - Ticket 53 - Need to update supported locales Cleaning up typos and format. - Ticket 53 - Need to update supported locales - Ticket 47522 - Password adminstrators should be able to voilate password policy - Tic
Re: Sunday 13th of October: SSD cache test day
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 00:02 +0200, Rolf Fokkens wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The Fedora SSD Cache is this sunday October 13th 2013. This Fedora Test
> Day will focus on bcache based SSD Caching in Fedora 20.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2013-10-13_SSD_Cache
>
> If you're interested in trying out the new bcache SSD caching
> functionality step by step instructions are available for:
>
> - bcache on physical hardware
> - bcache in a virtual machine
> - non-root FS on bcache (with or without LVM)
> - root FS on bcache (wtih or without LVM)
>
> The objective of this Test day is to demonstrate a working Fedora 20
> system using bcache. Te be more specific:
>
> * The system boots OK; after booting bcache is operating as expected
> * The system updates ("yum update") OK. After updating specifically
> the kernel the system boots OK.
> * The system is bootable when the caching device is disabled.
>
> Although testing on real hardware is closest to "the real thing",
> testing in a VM may also provide good insights on the proper working of
> bcache (except for performance).
>
> If you can't make the date of the test day, adding test case results to the
> wiki anytime next week is fine as well. Though if you do plan on showing up
> to the test day,
> please add your name to the participant list on the wiki, and when the day
> arrives, pop into #fedora-test-day on freenode and give us a shout! If you
> can't make the date
> of the test day, adding test case results to the wiki anytime next week is
> fine as well. Though if you do plan on showing up to the test day, add your
> name to the
> participant list on the wiki, and when the day arrives, pop into
> #fedora-test-day on freenode and give us a shout!
>
> The Wiki page is still under development, so expect some improvements
> before sunday.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Igor Gnatenko
> Rolf Fokkens
>
Today I've updated wiki page.
At test day will be Kent Overstreet (py1hon) which author of bcache.
--
Igor Gnatenko
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
Linux 3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: RPM Fusion Problems
On 11.10.2013 22:48, Lawrence Graves wrote: > The rpmfusion rpg keys will not install in Fedora 20 Beta TC2 > -- > All things are workable but don't all things work. Prov. 3:5 & 6 > > http://rpmfusion.org/ReportingBugs Mateusz Marzantowicz -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
RPM Fusion Problems
The rpmfusion rpg keys will not install in Fedora 20 Beta TC2 -- 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
F20: systemd-tmpfiles[215]: chmod(/var/log/journal) failed: Permission denied
I have this line in my logs (presented in red): systemd-tmpfiles[215]: chmod(/var/log/journal) failed: Permission denied Is it known bug or should I report it? I can't find any similar bug report in bugzilla. Mateusz Marzantowicz -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Upstream packages v.s. Fedora packages
Ed Greshko wrote: > On 10/11/13 18:28, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> You are probably correct in that it won't get much of my attention >> because there are thousands of things that need attention and my focus >> is necessarily primarily on the GTK backends and GNOME3 integration. > > OK. I am probably one of the few people out here in Asia using KDE. > I suppose I'll have to live with using the upstream stuff for now. Or, uninstall/disable the kde integration bits, yum remove libreoffice-kde -- Rex -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 04:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, 'we' didn't, really. Josef just thought it would be a useful thing to have, so he wrote it, and someone running a test day wound up using it. There was no strategic meeting or grand conspiracy or plan or something. This is how stuff happens in tech, usually: stuff gets done because people just...do it. Not really but OK Now we have seen test days where we used the wiki to track results and test days where we used josef's little tool to track results, and people seem to like the tool, so maybe now we'll make it more clear to people running test days that they have the option of using the tool to track the results. That's really the sum total of what's going on. Anything beats the wiki really so if it's in ready enough shape we should just move to that one instead. JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:07 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/11/2013 03:49 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > >> > > Is it a language comprehension issue or do you just deliberately > > misrepresent what people say to match what you want to believe? That > > response was asking if you had any suggestions, not implying that no > > research was done. I know you were here for the last big discussion > > about finding a replacement and the results of that search. Please > > stop being so antagonistic. > > We for one first need to identify which our requirements are before we > either use existing solution and or or write one on our own as well as > gather compare and evaluate existing solution before we try to write and > maintain an application to do this from scratch on our own. > > Which is why I was curious how we suddenly had come to the conclusion we > should just go ahead and write one from scratch because afaik there > exist no evaluation, no wiki page with comparison nor us actually > defining what we need and want from such system but I might have missed > that discussion. Well, 'we' didn't, really. Josef just thought it would be a useful thing to have, so he wrote it, and someone running a test day wound up using it. There was no strategic meeting or grand conspiracy or plan or something. This is how stuff happens in tech, usually: stuff gets done because people just...do it. Now we have seen test days where we used the wiki to track results and test days where we used josef's little tool to track results, and people seem to like the tool, so maybe now we'll make it more clear to people running test days that they have the option of using the tool to track the results. That's really the sum total of what's going on. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: QA:Testcase Partitioning On Software RAID
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 09:39 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:17 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> Minor edits to the test case instructions (there's no longer an > >> encrypt option in Installation Destination) > >> > >> > >> 1. Boot the installer using any available means > >> 2. At the Installation Destination screen, select at least two > >>disks, click Done. > >> 3. In Installation Options, click option "I want to > >>review/modify…" then click Continue. > >> 4. Remove existing partitions, if necessary > >> 5. Create the required boot partitions needed for your > >>architecture as non-RAID partitions. This > >>includes /boot and swap > >> 6. Create a partition, set its mount point to / and set its type > >>to RAID (stripe or mirror are both fine) > >> 7. Optionally, also create a RAID /home partition > >> 8. Finish the installation, choosing all provided defaults > > > > For minor fixups like this, please just go ahead and edit the wiki - we > > don't really need to do draft/review cycles simply to correct/update the > > instructions. Thanks a lot! > > If I fix it on the beta TC2 page, does that affect subsequent pages, or is > there a master somewhere? Well, it's not on 'the beta TC2 page'? There is only one copy of each test case page, they are in no way versioned or per-release or anything. We simply link to the static test case pages from the result matrix pages. So, just edit the page you see, and everything will be fine. The only exception is if you find that the content you want to edit is part of a template, but then it's still simple - just use the 'this page includes content from' links to find the template you actually need to edit, and edit that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 09:28 -0600, Tim Flink wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:24:06 -0600 > Tim Flink wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:52:28 + > > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > > > On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to > > > >> replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other > > > >> distribution are using? > > > > Such as? > > > > > > Exactly as I thought no research. > > > > I have looked into this have turned up a grand total of 0 things which > > would work well for us. > > I suppose I wrote that a little too fast. There are 2 things I'm aware > of that would satisfy our requirements on the surface. > > Nitrate has deployment issues on el6 and would require quite a bit of > work to even get working for us ignoring the functional mismatch for > Fedora. It's great when you have paid employees using it but I don't > see it as a great solution for volunteers. > > Ubuntu's TCMS might work but that's a layer on top of Drupal and I'm > not all that excited about learning drupal when that solution doesn't > quite solve everything we're looking for. Besides, one of the main nice things about josef's tool is that it is specifically *not* a T*C*MS (test CASE management system). It is a test RESULT tracker. Slots much more neatly into our process, with a minimum of disruption, and a clear net benefit, as the starters of the thread showed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 03:49 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: Is it a language comprehension issue or do you just deliberately misrepresent what people say to match what you want to believe? That response was asking if you had any suggestions, not implying that no research was done. I know you were here for the last big discussion about finding a replacement and the results of that search. Please stop being so antagonistic. We for one first need to identify which our requirements are before we either use existing solution and or or write one on our own as well as gather compare and evaluate existing solution before we try to write and maintain an application to do this from scratch on our own. Which is why I was curious how we suddenly had come to the conclusion we should just go ahead and write one from scratch because afaik there exist no evaluation, no wiki page with comparison nor us actually defining what we need and want from such system but I might have missed that discussion. JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 07:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? Such as? Exactly as I thought no research. Is it a language comprehension issue or do you just deliberately misrepresent what people say to match what you want to believe? That response was asking if you had any suggestions, not implying that no research was done. I know you were here for the last big discussion about finding a replacement and the results of that search. Please stop being so antagonistic. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Upstream packages v.s. Fedora packages
On 10/11/2013 09:36 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 10/11/13 18:28, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> You are probably correct in that it won't get much of my attention >> because there are thousands of things that need attention and my focus >> is necessarily primarily on the GTK backends and GNOME3 integration. > > OK. I am probably one of the few people out here in Asia using KDE. I > suppose I'll have to live with using the upstream stuff for now. > > I'll consider temping someone to work on kde4 when I've a bit more bandwidth. > Or just uninstall the libreoffice-kde package. It works just fine in KDE without it. -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com Sometimes there's nothing left to do but crash and burn...or die trying. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: QA:Testcase Partitioning On Software RAID
On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:17 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Minor edits to the test case instructions (there's no longer an >> encrypt option in Installation Destination) >> >> >> 1. Boot the installer using any available means >> 2. At the Installation Destination screen, select at least two >>disks, click Done. >> 3. In Installation Options, click option "I want to >>review/modify…" then click Continue. >> 4. Remove existing partitions, if necessary >> 5. Create the required boot partitions needed for your >>architecture as non-RAID partitions. This >>includes /boot and swap >> 6. Create a partition, set its mount point to / and set its type >>to RAID (stripe or mirror are both fine) >> 7. Optionally, also create a RAID /home partition >> 8. Finish the installation, choosing all provided defaults > > For minor fixups like this, please just go ahead and edit the wiki - we > don't really need to do draft/review cycles simply to correct/update the > instructions. Thanks a lot! If I fix it on the beta TC2 page, does that affect subsequent pages, or is there a master somewhere? Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:24:06 -0600 Tim Flink wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:52:28 + > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > > > >> Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to > > >> replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other > > >> distribution are using? > > > Such as? > > > > Exactly as I thought no research. > > I have looked into this have turned up a grand total of 0 things which > would work well for us. I suppose I wrote that a little too fast. There are 2 things I'm aware of that would satisfy our requirements on the surface. Nitrate has deployment issues on el6 and would require quite a bit of work to even get working for us ignoring the functional mismatch for Fedora. It's great when you have paid employees using it but I don't see it as a great solution for volunteers. Ubuntu's TCMS might work but that's a layer on top of Drupal and I'm not all that excited about learning drupal when that solution doesn't quite solve everything we're looking for. Tim > Did I write it up in a formal document? No, I didn't because I didn't > find anything worth writing about. > > > It's much more practical for us to try to find something to re-use > > then to write something from scratch on our own and try to maintain > > it. ( unless we would get a buy in from other distro's ) > > Nobody is disagreeing with you on that. If you can find something that > we've missed, please let us know. > > Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:52:28 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > >> Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to > >> replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other > >> distribution are using? > > Such as? > > Exactly as I thought no research. I have looked into this have turned up a grand total of 0 things which would work well for us. Did I write it up in a formal document? No, I didn't because I didn't find anything worth writing about. > It's much more practical for us to try to find something to re-use > then to write something from scratch on our own and try to maintain > it. ( unless we would get a buy in from other distro's ) Nobody is disagreeing with you on that. If you can find something that we've missed, please let us know. Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? Such as? Exactly as I thought no research. It's much more practical for us to try to find something to re-use then to write something from scratch on our own and try to maintain it. ( unless we would get a buy in from other distro's ) JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Upstream packages v.s. Fedora packages
On 10/11/13 18:28, Caolán McNamara wrote: > You are probably correct in that it won't get much of my attention > because there are thousands of things that need attention and my focus > is necessarily primarily on the GTK backends and GNOME3 integration. OK. I am probably one of the few people out here in Asia using KDE. I suppose I'll have to live with using the upstream stuff for now. I'll consider temping someone to work on kde4 when I've a bit more bandwidth. Thanks -- Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and self-serving posts -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 17:10 +0300, Alexander Todorov wrote: > На 11.10.2013 17:03, Adam Williamson написа: > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > >> Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the > >> wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? > > > > Such as? > > > > Just for the record: > > https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/ > > > Nitrate is a full blown test case management system, however for the test > days I > think it is a bit too much. Yes, we are fully aware of nitrate, believe me. :P He Rui evaluated nitrate as a replacement for our current processes. It was a while ago, but AFAIK, the comparison broadly still holds true. It would not be a straightforward or universally beneficial switch. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tcms_Comparison -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
- Original Message - > From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42:13 PM > Subject: Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results > > Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the > wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? > > JBG Hi, Viking-Ice! this app is/was a "resultsdb proof of concept" that actually had a practical use. If you are willing to investigate other (existing) tools, I'll be glad to read your research. In the mean time, I think it's OK to offer this alternative (since it also has the wiki-syntax export, so we're not losing any results)... J. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
На 11.10.2013 17:03, Adam Williamson написа: On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? Such as? Just for the record: https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/ Nitrate is a full blown test case management system, however for the test days I think it is a bit too much. -- Alex -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the > wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? Such as? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 01:05 PM, Josef Skladanka wrote: Hi, first of all - thanks for the kind words! I mailed the testday-owners during F19, I honestly forgot to promote it now (my bad, I guess we could add it to some 'HOW TO' for testdays, if it exists). The app still has it's limits (and I have not yet found the time to work on it since F19), but it can IMHO acomodate most of the tesdays'. The biggest "meh" issue there is right now is the inability to dynamically add more 'identifying columns' (now the combination of username+hardware says which 'result' comes to which line in the matrix), but I believe that being able to rename it via metadata (to e.g. 'KVM version') can be a simple solution to the problem, and it's weird that I have not thought of that sooner :) I'll ping the people responsible for the (at the moment) sheduled testdays, and do my best to work with them on using the app. BTW: I'm open to name suggestions, now it's just "the Testday App" :D and it lives here: http://testdays.qa.fedoraproject.org/testdays/ Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using? JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
Hi, first of all - thanks for the kind words! I mailed the testday-owners during F19, I honestly forgot to promote it now (my bad, I guess we could add it to some 'HOW TO' for testdays, if it exists). The app still has it's limits (and I have not yet found the time to work on it since F19), but it can IMHO acomodate most of the tesdays'. The biggest "meh" issue there is right now is the inability to dynamically add more 'identifying columns' (now the combination of username+hardware says which 'result' comes to which line in the matrix), but I believe that being able to rename it via metadata (to e.g. 'KVM version') can be a simple solution to the problem, and it's weird that I have not thought of that sooner :) I'll ping the people responsible for the (at the moment) sheduled testdays, and do my best to work with them on using the app. BTW: I'm open to name suggestions, now it's just "the Testday App" :D and it lives here: http://testdays.qa.fedoraproject.org/testdays/ Regards, Joza - Original Message - > From: "Cole Robinson" > To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" > > Cc: "Josef Skladanka" > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 2:21:23 PM > Subject: Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results > > On 10/11/2013 07:55 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > > Folks, > > I've participated both in Virtualization and GNOME test days this week and > > there is one thing that felt very strange and not easy to use for me. > > > > GNOME test day results were recorded in the wiki, while Virtualization ones > > in > > a web app here: > > http://209.132.184.192/testdays/show_event?event_id=7 > > > > > > IMO this web app is much easier and faster to use instead of the wiki. And > > it > > is not a full blown TCMS like Nitrate, with features that most of the > > people > > will not need. > > > > I propose to make use of this web app for future test day results/bug > > tracking. And give it a name :). > > > > Yes please. This tool made my life much easier when managing F19 and F20 virt > test days, as I'm sure it did for all the people who reported test results. > > There was some promo for it during F19 cycle but not much this time around. > Maybe jskladan can enlighten us as to the tools future. > > - Cole > > -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 08:21 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 10/11/2013 07:55 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > > Folks, > > I've participated both in Virtualization and GNOME test days this week and > > there is one thing that felt very strange and not easy to use for me. > > > > GNOME test day results were recorded in the wiki, while Virtualization ones > > in > > a web app here: > > http://209.132.184.192/testdays/show_event?event_id=7 > > > > > > IMO this web app is much easier and faster to use instead of the wiki. And > > it > > is not a full blown TCMS like Nitrate, with features that most of the people > > will not need. > > > > I propose to make use of this web app for future test day results/bug > > tracking. And give it a name :). > > > > Yes please. This tool made my life much easier when managing F19 and F20 virt > test days, as I'm sure it did for all the people who reported test results. > > There was some promo for it during F19 cycle but not much this time around. > Maybe jskladan can enlighten us as to the tools future. Reporting results to the wiki sucks indeed, I'm in favour of anything that makes it better without any major compromises :) jskladan, what's the current status of the tool, is there any barrier to using it more systematically in future? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
On 10/11/2013 07:55 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > Folks, > I've participated both in Virtualization and GNOME test days this week and > there is one thing that felt very strange and not easy to use for me. > > GNOME test day results were recorded in the wiki, while Virtualization ones in > a web app here: > http://209.132.184.192/testdays/show_event?event_id=7 > > > IMO this web app is much easier and faster to use instead of the wiki. And it > is not a full blown TCMS like Nitrate, with features that most of the people > will not need. > > I propose to make use of this web app for future test day results/bug > tracking. And give it a name :). > Yes please. This tool made my life much easier when managing F19 and F20 virt test days, as I'm sure it did for all the people who reported test results. There was some promo for it during F19 cycle but not much this time around. Maybe jskladan can enlighten us as to the tools future. - Cole -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
F-20 Branched report: 20131011 changes
Compose started at Fri Oct 11 09:15:02 UTC 2013 Broken deps for armhfp -- [blueman] blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires obex-data-server >= 0:0.4.3 blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires gvfs-obexftp [bwm-ng] bwm-ng-0.6-11.1.fc20.armv7hl requires libstatgrab.so.9 [cloud-init] cloud-init-0.7.2-4.fc20.noarch requires dmidecode [cobbler] cobbler-2.4.0-2.fc20.noarch requires syslinux [condor-wallaby] condor-wallaby-client-5.0.3-4.fc20.noarch requires python-qmf >= 0:0.9.1073306 [fawkes] fawkes-plugin-player-0.5.0-12.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [fts] fts-server-3.1.1-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libactivemq-cpp.so.14 [gnome-do-plugins] gnome-do-plugins-thunderbird-0.8.4-14.fc20.armv7hl requires thunderbird [gofer] ruby-gofer-0.75-4.fc20.noarch requires rubygem(qpid) >= 0:0.16.0 [gradle] gradle-1.0-18.fc20.noarch requires plexus-container-default [grass] grass-6.4.3-2.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so grass-libs-6.4.3-2.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [gtkd] gtkd-geany-tags-2.0.0-29.20120815git9ae9181.fc18.noarch requires gtkd = 0:2.0.0-29.20120815git9ae9181.fc18 [kawa] 1:kawa-1.11-5.fc19.armv7hl requires servlet25 [koji] koji-vm-1.8.0-2.fc20.noarch requires python-virtinst [kyua-cli] kyua-cli-0.5-3.fc19.armv7hl requires liblutok.so.0 kyua-cli-tests-0.5-3.fc19.armv7hl requires liblutok.so.0 [monotone] monotone-1.0-11.fc19.armv7hl requires libbotan-1.8.2.so perl-Monotone-1.0-11.fc19.armv7hl requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) [mozilla-firetray] mozilla-firetray-thunderbird-0.3.6-0.5.143svn.fc18.1.armv7hl requires thunderbird >= 0:11 [msp430-libc] msp430-libc-20120224-2.fc19.noarch requires msp430-gcc >= 0:4.6.3 [nifti2dicom] nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtksys.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkWidgets.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkVolumeRendering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkViews.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkTextAnalysis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkRendering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkParallel.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkInfovis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkImaging.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkIO.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkHybrid.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGraphics.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGeovis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGenericFiltering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkFiltering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkCommon.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkCharts.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libQVTK.so.5.10 [nocpulse-common] nocpulse-common-2.2.7-2.fc20.noarch requires perl(RHN::DBI) [openbox] gdm-control-3.5.2-2.fc20.armv7hl requires gnome-panel gnome-panel-control-3.5.2-2.fc20.armv7hl requires gnome-panel [openpts] openpts-0.2.6-7.fc20.armv7hl requires tboot [osm2pgsql] osm2pgsql-0.82.0-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [ovirt-engine] ovirt-engine-notification-service-3.1.0-1.fc19.noarch requires classpathx-mail [oyranos] oyranos-libs-0.4.0-7.fc19.armv7hl requires libraw.so.5 [perl-Language-Expr] perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) [perl-MIME-Lite-HTML] perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-4.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) [perl-MooseX-TrackDirty-Attributes] perl-MooseX-TrackDirty-Attributes-2.002-2.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) [perl-Padre] perl-Padre-0.90-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) [player] player-3.0.2-33.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [pure] pure-doc-0.57-4.fc20.noarch requires pure = 0:0.57-4.fc20 [python-basemap] python-basemap-1.0.6-4.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [python-tag] python-tag-2013.1-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libboost_python.so.1.53.0 [rootplot] rootplot-2.2.1-7.fc19.noarch requires root-python [ruby-spqr] ruby-spqr-0.3.6-6.fc20.noarch requires ruby-qmf [rubygem-audited-activerecord] rubygem-audited-activerecord-3.0.0-3.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(activerecord) < 0:4 [scala] scala-2.9.2-2.fc19.noarch requires osgi(org.scala-ide.scala.library) scala-2.9.2-2.fc19.noarch requires /usr/share/java/jansi.jar [scilab] scilab-doc-5.4.1-4.fc20.noarch requires scilab = 0:5.4.1-4.fc
Let's stop using wiki for test results
Folks, I've participated both in Virtualization and GNOME test days this week and there is one thing that felt very strange and not easy to use for me. GNOME test day results were recorded in the wiki, while Virtualization ones in a web app here: http://209.132.184.192/testdays/show_event?event_id=7 IMO this web app is much easier and faster to use instead of the wiki. And it is not a full blown TCMS like Nitrate, with features that most of the people will not need. I propose to make use of this web app for future test day results/bug tracking. And give it a name :). Regards, Alex -- http://atodorov.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:17:04 +0200 Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi testers, > > I'm running F20 with all updates applied. > man localectl, should help you out "localectl list-x11-keymap-variants" "locateectl list-keymaps" -- Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On 10/11/2013 01:25 PM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote: > On 10/11/2013 06:17 AM, Joachim Backes wrote: >> Hi testers, >> >> I'm running F20 with all updates applied. >> >> With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german >> keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. >> >> Even a command like >> >> /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys >> >> in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty >> session at the first login after reboot. >> >> I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in >> /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. >> >> No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. >> >> Anybody has similar problems? >> >> Kind regards >> >> Joachim Backes >> > > I have the same problem since f-19 > Dropping "vconsole.keymap=..." in the grub line (/boot/grub2/grub.cfg, or /etc/default/grub together with grub2-mkconfig) was helpful for me! Now the keyboard layout remains correct after reboot! Joachim -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) Kernel-3.11.4-201.fc19.x86_64 Joachim Backes https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On 10/11/2013 06:17 AM, Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi testers, > > I'm running F20 with all updates applied. > > With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german > keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. > > Even a command like > > /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys > > in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty > session at the first login after reboot. > > I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in > /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. > > No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. > > Anybody has similar problems? > > Kind regards > > Joachim Backes > I have the same problem since f-19 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Upstream packages v.s. Fedora packages
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:13 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 10/11/13 10:03, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 06:20 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> I see Does that then imply the problem is, or has been, > >> introduced by the packaging of LibreOffice for Fedora? > > Have you filed a bug the maintainers can look at? It isn't easy to > > diagnose the issue without information to go on, at least a stack trace. > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces > > > As I mentioned in the first message a bugzilla exists. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890474 > > They have not requested a stack trace. On 2012-12-31 it seemed the > issue resided with LibreOffice. But, as you can see going through the > bugzilla I constantly said it wasn't fixed in the Fedora packages. > Since it was reported against F18, the bugzilla was closed. > > Of course I reopened it. But, I am doubtful that it will get any "real" > attention. > Upstream/Downstream isn't really at issue here. The binary packages available for download from upstream are built against kde3 (rhel-5 baseline builds). There are two implementations of the kde stuff, a kde3 one and a kde4 one. Our downstream packages are built against KDE4, so its almost certainly not a packaging bug, but an underlying problem that only affects the KDE4 backend. I was initially led astray on thinking that this was fixed because I had fixed a very similar sounding bug to this in the generic shared code of all the backends. You are probably correct in that it won't get much of my attention because there are thousands of things that need attention and my focus is necessarily primarily on the GTK backends and GNOME3 integration. In the past I only built the gtk backends and not the kde ones precisely because I knew I wouldn't have the resources to maintain both of them. The only long real solution is that someone with the technical know how and interest take an interest in improving the kde4 support upstream and avoid it drifting into irrelevance. FWIW (to try and tempt someone, not necessarily you, into having a look at kde4 integration) building upstream libreoffice with kde4 support is super easy with... git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core ./autogen.sh --enable-kde4 make and the majority of kde4 specific stuff is in vcl/unx/kde4 C. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On 10/11/2013 11:38 AM, Martin Airs wrote: > On Friday 11 Oct 2013 11:17:04 Joachim Backes wrote: >> Hi testers, >> >> I'm running F20 with all updates applied. >> >> With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german >> keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. >> >> Even a command like >> >> /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys >> >> in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty >> session at the first login after reboot. >> >> I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in >> /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. >> >> No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. >> >> Anybody has similar problems? >> >> Kind regards >> >> Joachim Backes > > I'm not 100% sure if this is related, but I have found that the sddm login > manager always has Layout: USA up in the menu up top. > > does yours boot into graphical target? Yes, it does (with GDM login). > > also I don't know how to put other layouts in the drop down list, I would > like > the GB layout myself > Weird: First booting into runlevel 3 keeps the keyboard layout (DE) . Then additionally running "init 5" will proceed to the graphical interface with a correct keyboard layout (in the ttys and in graphical sessions). Joachim Backes -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) Kernel-3.11.4-201.fc19.x86_64 Joachim Backes https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On Friday 11 Oct 2013 11:17:04 Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi testers, > > I'm running F20 with all updates applied. > > With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german > keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. > > Even a command like > > /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys > > in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty > session at the first login after reboot. > > I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in > /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. > > No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. > > Anybody has similar problems? > > Kind regards > > Joachim Backes I'm not 100% sure if this is related, but I have found that the sddm login manager always has Layout: USA up in the menu up top. does yours boot into graphical target? also I don't know how to put other layouts in the drop down list, I would like the GB layout myself Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:17 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi testers, > > I'm running F20 with all updates applied. > > With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german > keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. > > Even a command like > > /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys > > in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty > session at the first login after reboot. > > I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in > /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. > > No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. What are the parameters in grub.cfg for each kernel? Are you sure the 'previous' kernel still works _now_? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Lost keyboard layout in F20 after each reboot
Hi testers, I'm running F20 with all updates applied. With kernel-3.11.4-301.fc20.x86_64 having the problem that the german keyboard layout, made by system-config-keyboard, is lost after each reboot. Even a command like /sbin/system-config-keyboard --noui de-latin1-nodeadkeys in /etc/rc.local does not help. I have to do it manually in a tty session at the first login after reboot. I don't see any messages concerning the keyboard layout neither in /var/log/messages nor in /var/log/boot.log. No such problems with the previous kernel-3.11.3-301.fc20.x86_64. Anybody has similar problems? Kind regards Joachim Backes -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) Kernel-3.11.4-201.fc19.x86_64 Joachim Backes https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) Available Now!
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 03:46 -0400, Joerg Lechner wrote: > Hi, > several times I started Fedora 20 with > Fedora-Live-LXDE-i686-20-Beta-TC2.iso via CD. When I later on start > Windows XP the time displayed by Windows is changed by approximately 2 > hours. Is this already known or is it worthwhile to write a bug? > Kind Regards This is usually the result of Linux and Windows having different opinions about whether the system clock should be set to UTC or local time. I believe the installer is currently intended to guess the system clock should be set to local time if Windows is installed, or UTC if it is not. If you have Windows installed but system clock set to UTC, it will break, that's kinda expected. If you have Windows installed and system clock set to local time and it's still going wrong, I think you should file a bug against anaconda. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) Available Now!
Hi, several times I started Fedora 20 with Fedora-Live-LXDE-i686-20-Beta-TC2.iso via CD. When I later on start Windows XP the time displayed by Windows is changed by approximately 2 hours. Is this already known or is it worthwhile to write a bug? Kind Regards -Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- Von: Andre Robatino An: test-announce Verschickt: Do, 3 Okt 2013 8:11 am Betreff: [Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) Available Now! NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit Desktop Live, the 32-bit Security Spin, and the 64-bit LXDE and Security Spins are over their respective size targets. As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787 . Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest download, but download-ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror (with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for Installation [2], Base [3], and Desktop [4] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [5]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [6], or on the test list [7]. Create Fedora 20 Beta test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787 Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria [6] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [7] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test ___ 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 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: QA:Testcase Partitioning On Software RAID
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:17 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Minor edits to the test case instructions (there's no longer an > encrypt option in Installation Destination) > > > 1. Boot the installer using any available means > 2. At the Installation Destination screen, select at least two > disks, click Done. > 3. In Installation Options, click option "I want to > review/modify…" then click Continue. > 4. Remove existing partitions, if necessary > 5. Create the required boot partitions needed for your > architecture as non-RAID partitions. This > includes /boot and swap > 6. Create a partition, set its mount point to / and set its type > to RAID (stripe or mirror are both fine) > 7. Optionally, also create a RAID /home partition > 8. Finish the installation, choosing all provided defaults For minor fixups like this, please just go ahead and edit the wiki - we don't really need to do draft/review cycles simply to correct/update the instructions. Thanks a lot! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
