Re: F39 candidate composes coming - here's the plan

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 11:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop regarding F39 plans.
> 
> As you may have noticed, we've slipped once or twice already (depending
> on whether you count the "early target date") and are in danger of
> slipping again. The go/no-go meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (2023-
> 10-26). The outstanding blockers are all Raspberry Pi-related, aside
> from the shim one we've been waiving for several releases and intend to
> waive again.
> 
> Matthew Miller, Kevin Fenzi and I came up with this plan: we're going
> to run a compose right now without fixes for the two outstanding Pi
> blockers (2241252 and 2244305). If QA can get sufficient testing on
> this done by the go/no-go meeting, we can discuss the possibility of
> shipping it and noting that there are known issues with Raspberry Pi
> that are taking time to resolve, and Pi users should not install or
> upgrade to F39 until they're resolved (or something like that).
> 
> If at any point a fix for 2241252 shows up, we'll run another compose
> with the fix included. If that gets sufficient testing by the time of
> the meeting, we can also consider that as a candidate to ship. If ARM
> team decide to attempt a fix for 2244305 we'd also pull that in, but if
> not, we think it's reasonable to consider revoting or waiving that bug,
> as it seems not to happen very commonly or consistently and the
> proposed "fix" apparently comes with tradeoffs of some kind.
> 
> So, QA folks, please stand ready to test one or two candidate composes
> soon. If we wind up with two, we will consider most test results to
> apply to both, as the only difference should be uboot-tools; we would
> want to run ARM hardware tests, at least, on both composes if possible.
> The usual announcement mails will be sent for the completed composes.
> 
> Thanks folks!

Update on this: the first candidate without Pi fixes is done and
currently available for testing - see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_39_RC_1.1_Summary .
The second candidate is running, when it is done,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_39_RC_1.2_Summary
will be live.

Most tests of either candidate will be valid for both, but we
especially would like testing of the second candidate (when it's done)
on ARM hardware - obviously on Raspberry Pi, but also on any other ARM
hardware folks have lying around. We ended up having to revert uboot-
tools to an older version to try and address the Pi issues, so we need
to check that hasn't broken anything else important. If you run into
problems, please file a bug, propose it as a release blocker, and maybe
reply here just to be sure :)

Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net



___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [fedora-arm] Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 20:51 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:33 PM Adam Williamson
>  wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 22:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW: anyone at
> > > > all to come up with a genius fix, otherwise we'll likely have to
> > > > document this
> > > 
> > > Happy to oblige ;--]
> > 
> > Genius located! Thanks, Zbigniew :)
> 
> Be careful of this solution. Time functions were formerly returning an
> error until the RTC was set to an accurate time. The new behavior is
> to return a fake/incorrect time without an error. I don't think it's a
> good idea to misreport something time system wide without error.
> 
> You might want to consider other ways to get beyond signature checks
> that are less intrusive, and not system wide.

There isn't any new behaviour. We're just doing a new systemd build for
F38 so the already-existing behaviour (set the clock to the time the
package was built) will give a later time than previously.
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net



___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Self-introduction: Osama Albahrani

2023-10-25 Thread Osama Albahrani via test 
Hello everyone,

I am in my last year as a Computer Science undergraduate student as North 
Carolina State University and the Treasurer of the Linux Users' Group at NC 
State. And I am from Saudi Arabia.

I have some experience with the command line through a couple classes I've 
taken and using different Linux distros on my free time through dual booting 
and using containers. At school, I liked learning C and operating systems, and 
developed an interest in how operating systems work and how they compare to one 
another. I am also interested performance and optimizations and how software 
can better communicate with the hardware. I look forward to learning more about 
package management and becoming a maintainer as well as learning how to write 
kernel code in the near future.

So, I would like to be more involved and help with Fedora testing! I wanted to 
mark that I was able to successfully perform 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_dualboot_with_macOS using the Fedora 
39 rc 1.1 but not sure how. Here is what I tried so far:

$ relval report-results
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:121: 
DeprecationWarning: pkg_resources is deprecated as an API
  warnings.warn("pkg_resources is deprecated as an API", DeprecationWarning)
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:2870: 
DeprecationWarning: Deprecated call to 
`pkg_resources.declare_namespace('paste')`.
Implementing implicit namespace packages (as specified in PEP 420) is preferred 
to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace`. See 
https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/references/keywords.html#keyword-namespace-packages
  declare_namespace(pkg)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/relval", line 8, in 
sys.exit(main())
 ^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/relval/cli.py", line 815, in main
args, site = parse_args()
 
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/relval/cli.py", line 390, in 
parse_args
site = setup_site(args)
   
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/relval/cli.py", line 85, in setup_site
site.login()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/wikitcms/wiki.py", line 338, in login
self.site_init()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/mwclient/client.py", line 142, in 
site_init
info = self.get('query', meta='userinfo', uiprop='groups|rights')
   ^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/mwclient/client.py", line 234, in get
return self.api(action, 'GET', *args, **kwargs)
   
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/mwclient/client.py", line 285, in api
info = self.raw_api(action, http_method, **kwargs)
   ^^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/mwclient/client.py", line 437, in 
raw_api
res = self.raw_call('api', data, retry_on_error=retry_on_error,
  ^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/mwclient/client.py", line 409, in 
raw_call
stream.raise_for_status()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/requests/models.py", line 1021, in 
raise_for_status
raise HTTPError(http_error_msg, response=self)
requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 401 Client Error: Unauthorized for url: 
https://fedoraproject.org/w/api.php?meta=userinfo%7Cuserinfo&uiprop=groups%7Crights%7Cblockinfo%7Chasmsg&continue=&action=query&format=json

(I also tried to manually edit 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_39_RC_1.1_Desktop but I get 
the "your account must have at least one non cla* group to be able to login and 
edit" message)

Best,
Osama Albahrani
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 22:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW: anyone at
> > all to come up with a genius fix, otherwise we'll likely have to
> > document this
> 
> Happy to oblige ;--]

Genius located! Thanks, Zbigniew :)
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net



___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

F39 candidate composes coming - here's the plan

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson 
Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop regarding F39 plans.

As you may have noticed, we've slipped once or twice already (depending
on whether you count the "early target date") and are in danger of
slipping again. The go/no-go meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (2023-
10-26). The outstanding blockers are all Raspberry Pi-related, aside
from the shim one we've been waiving for several releases and intend to
waive again.

Matthew Miller, Kevin Fenzi and I came up with this plan: we're going
to run a compose right now without fixes for the two outstanding Pi
blockers (2241252 and 2244305). If QA can get sufficient testing on
this done by the go/no-go meeting, we can discuss the possibility of
shipping it and noting that there are known issues with Raspberry Pi
that are taking time to resolve, and Pi users should not install or
upgrade to F39 until they're resolved (or something like that).

If at any point a fix for 2241252 shows up, we'll run another compose
with the fix included. If that gets sufficient testing by the time of
the meeting, we can also consider that as a candidate to ship. If ARM
team decide to attempt a fix for 2244305 we'd also pull that in, but if
not, we think it's reasonable to consider revoting or waiving that bug,
as it seems not to happen very commonly or consistently and the
proposed "fix" apparently comes with tradeoffs of some kind.

So, QA folks, please stand ready to test one or two candidate composes
soon. If we wind up with two, we will consider most test results to
apply to both, as the only difference should be uboot-tools; we would
want to run ARM hardware tests, at least, on both composes if possible.
The usual announcement mails will be sent for the completed composes.

Thanks folks!
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net



___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue