Re: When F16 PPC image will be available ?
Manash Kumar Nayak píše v Čt 04. 08. 2011 v 16:28 +0530: > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Frank Murphy > wrote: > > On 04/08/11 10:24, Manash Kumar Nayak wrote: > > I was looking for F16 PPC Alpha TC1 image, but unfortunately > could not > > find the same. > > I think it is not yet available to test. > > Any idea when F16 PPC image would be available for testing ? > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Manas > > > > > > > >ppc hasn't been supported since Fedora 13, iirc. > >https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/ > > I heard F16 is going to support PPC this time. But don't have > much official information on this. > Thanks Frank for this info. PPC is a secondary architecture for some time in Fedora, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/PowerPC Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: wpa_supplicant - Koji Buildsystem - No search results
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 20:31:22 +0200 drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM, poma > wrote: > > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?terms=wpa_supplicant&type=package&match=glob > > Seems to be caused by the "_" try using a wildcard instead i.e > "wpa*supplicant" https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/291 Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rpmbuild --target=i686 on x86_64 fails in configure
Zoltan Boszormenyi píše v So 14. 04. 2012 v 18:27 +0200: > 2012-04-14 17:20 keltezéssel, John Reiser írta: > >> What should I do to make rpmbuild work for --target=i686? > > Does this work: > > export CC="gcc -m32" > > rpmbuild -ba --target=i686 ... > > > > Yes, it does. Although I still get signs that rpmbuild wants to build > x86_64 binaries: > > + ./configure --host=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > --build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu ... > > and > > checking for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc... gcc -m32 > > but the resulting binary rpm is suffixed as i686.rpm and > the shard libs are 32-bit. rpmbuild doesn't support cross-compiles, it may or may not work, the recommended way is to use mock, then you will get clean packages Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F18: Why does "modprobe ipv6" not load the module "ipv6"?
Joachim Backes píše v Pá 14. 12. 2012 v 10:47 +0100: > Hi F18 testers, > > It seems I'm doing something wrong: > > 1. "lsmod |grep ipv6" : no module ipv6 found. Then > 2. "modprobe ipv6" reports no error, but ipv6 does not seem to be >loaded: same result as in 1. > >There is no ipv6 listed in /etc/modprobe.d/ (blacklist.conf, >openfwwf.conf, udlfb.conf). > > Any advice appreciated. ipv6 is built-in in the kernel, it doesn't exist as a module for quite some time Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F18: Why does "modprobe ipv6" not load the module "ipv6"?
Joachim Backes píše v Pá 14. 12. 2012 v 13:18 +0100: > On 12/14/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Horák wrote: > > Joachim Backes píše v Pá 14. 12. 2012 v 10:47 +0100: > >> Hi F18 testers, > >> > >> It seems I'm doing something wrong: > >> > >> 1. "lsmod |grep ipv6" : no module ipv6 found. Then > >> 2. "modprobe ipv6" reports no error, but ipv6 does not seem to be > >>loaded: same result as in 1. > >> > >>There is no ipv6 listed in /etc/modprobe.d/ (blacklist.conf, > >>openfwwf.conf, udlfb.conf). > >> > >> Any advice appreciated. > > > > ipv6 is built-in in the kernel, it doesn't exist as a module for quite > > some time > > Hi Dan, > > but why then the find command locates the module ipv6 in /lib/modules? > > find /lib/modules/3.6.10-4.fc18.x86_64 -name ipv6 > > /lib/modules/3.6.10-4.fc18.x86_64/kernel/net/ipv6 it's a directory containing additional ipv6 modules, the module's name would be ipv6.ko Dan > Kind regards > > Joachim Backes > > https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes > > PGP key ID: 0x1BB12F9E > -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Fedora 14 Alpha PPC64 ISO Images ?
Subrata Modak píše v St 25. 08. 2010 v 13:27 +0530: > James, > > Were we not to have public availability of PPC64 images from Fedora 14 > Alpha onwards ? Fedora for ppc/ppc64 moved from primary to secondary status since Fedora 13 and it's now developed outside the main build system with it's own development cycle that would ideally be only slightly behind the primary one. AFAIK the project is struggling with HW and network connectivity issues for some time. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/PowerPC (unfortunately out-dated, but the mailing list info is valid, another source of information is the #fedora-ppc channel on freenode IRC) for more details. Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:07:04 -0400 Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jan Wildeboer (jwild...@redhat.com) said: > > How will you track blocker bugs? > > > > How can we see a global view of all open bugs? Aggregate from X > > upstream bug report systems? Which not all are Bugzilla? > > > > How can we track critical bugs? > > Additional concerns I'd have above this: > > - Not all things we ship have active upstream bug trackers to fall > back on > - We still need a way to track Fedora-specific integration & packaging > concerns, which would likely get closed upstream as 'NOTABUG' for > that project > - What filing downstream gives the Fedora maintainer is a good > mechanism for knowing what's going on in that package in Fedora. > Tracking *all* upstream bugs in a bug tracker may not be a good way > to do so. > > Honestly, I think a good dedicated triage team that works to verify > and move upstream as appropriate works better. But, you know, > requires getting and keeping such a team. we are missing a tool that would clone the Fedora bugs from bugzilla to upstream bug trackers. I think the removal of the manual work needed to copy all the information from bugzilla to upstream tracker would be appreciated by the packagers. I have the idea for the tool for quite some time, but didn't find the time to realize it :-( Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F20: Updates-testing mirrors inoperable?
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:53:09 +0100 Joachim Backes wrote: > On 12/06/2013 10:45 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 10:41 +0100, Joachim Backes wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> anybody sees this too if including the updates-testing repo to > >> "yum update": > >> > >> sudo yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing > >> Loaded plugins: langpacks > >> updates-testing/20/x86_64/metalink | 27 kB > >> 00:00 > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/fedora.redhat.com/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://mirrors.n-ix.net/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://mirror1.atrpms.net/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://mirror2.atrpms.net/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://mirror.fraunhofer.de/dl.fedoraproject.org/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://ftp.byfly.by/pub/fedoraproject.org/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://mirror.1000mbps.com/fedora/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz/MIRRORS/fedora.redhat.com/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> updates-testing | 4.6 kB > >> 00:00 > >> http://ultra.linux.cz/MIRRORS/fedora.redhat.com/linux/updates/testing/20/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: > >> [Errno -1] repomd.xml does not match metalink for updates-testing > >> Trying other mirror. > >> > >> .. And so on. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> Joachim Backes > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) > >> Kernel-3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> Joachim Backes > >> https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes > > > > Confirm! You can fix this by: > > # yum --disablerepo=updates,updates-testing downgrade yum > > # yum clean all > > # yum makecache > > > > and sure -1 karma in [0]bodhi > > > > [0]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22706/yum-3.4.3-119.fc20 > > > > Hi Igor, > > thank you, did help :-) are you sure this is a problem in yum itself and not in the mirror infrastructure? Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: F20: Updates-testing mirrors inoperable?
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:12:48 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 11:10 +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > > > Hi Igor, > > > > > > thank you, did help :-) > > > > are you sure this is a problem in yum itself and not in the mirror > > infrastructure? > > If downgrading yum helps, then it does rather suggest yum's involved > in the problem. there was both a yum downgrade and "yum clean all" done, it's not clear what step fixes the problem Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Testing idea: kernel 4.7 for Fedora 23 / Fedora 24
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:59:49 -0400 Joerg Lechner wrote: > Hi, > tried F23, no kernel 4.7. > see: same for F-24, pushes are in progress now ... Dan -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Package caching
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:29:33 + Russel Winder wrote: > Debian has the approx system for package caching. This is just a proxy > for caching actually demanded packages. It does mean though that I > only download once and can upgrade 5 machines. Since Internet is still > metered during working hours for some of us, this caching is extremely > useful. > > So the question is, doe something such as this exist for Fedora > Rawhide? you can set a private Fedora mirror using squid, my old write up is at http://sharkcz.livejournal.com/2534.html (my server still works :-)) and I'm sure there were other guides too. > If not is anyone interested in helping make it exist? > > What is the programming language of such things for Fedora these days? > Go, Rust, C++, Python 3,… anything you want Dan ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange situation with Wine on Fedora 27
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:12:07 +0200 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:27:34 + (UTC), Thomas Goffin wrote: > > > Hello, I'm just trying to install the Wine via dnf and get: > > # dnf install wine ... Error: Transaction check error: > > file /usr/share/doc/gstreamer1/NEWS from install of > > gstreamer1-1.12.1-1.fc27.i686 conflicts with file from package > > gstreamer1-1.12.0-1.fc27.x86_64 > > I think I see it, try "dnf install --best wine", so it will not only install gstreamer1-1.12.1-1.fc27.i686 required by wine, but also update gstreamer1-1.12.0-1.fc27.x86_64 to 1.12.1-1. This kind of errors appear when dealing with multi-libed packages. Or do "dnf update" first. Dan ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Mystery empty file
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:45:23 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 11:15 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 AM Richard Ryniker > > wrote: > > > I think you will find the file is not truly empty. /sys is not > > > an actual file system, merely an interface to kernel > > > information. There is no directory structure that records the > > > length or other attributes of a file, as is the case for data on > > > real media such as disks. > > > > > > If you read the /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices file, you should > > > find the data you seek. > > > > [root@fmac ~]# ls -l /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices > > -r--r--r--. 1 root root 0 Jun 6 10:11 /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices > > [root@fmac ~]# cat /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices > > cat: /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices: Operation not permitted > > [root@fmac ~]# > > > > 5.2.0-0.rc3.git1.1.fc31.x86_64 > > Try it with enforcing=0 ? it's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658675 I suppose, need to ping the kernel team ... Dan ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ppp: FTBFS - should it be a beta blocker?
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:41:59 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 15:19 +, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Greetings! > > > > During Friday's FESCo meeting we learned that ppp is currently FTBFS > > on Fedora 28/Rawhide[0]. FESCo was unsure if this particular failure > > would cause ppp to fail in operation, or if it was simply a build > > failure. Thus, we were unsure whether it should be considered a beta > > blocker, especially since no known failures have been reported. We > > did however want to notify QA about it, just in case QA knew how to > > test it (none of us did). > > Basically it'd require someone who uses ADSL via a dumb ADSL modem > plugged directly into their system via USB (*not* via an ADSL router or people who use ADSL router/modem in bridging mode > that their system is connected to via ethernet; in that configuration, > the router does this work). > > Either that, or someone still using an actual dial-up modem. > > If either of those cases works, I think, it means PPP works. yes, it should be enough Dan ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora35 missing package : pandoc-citeproc
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:36:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 2021-09-30 11:44 a.m., Nicolas Mendiboure via test wrote: > > Missing binary package pandoc-citeproc on Fedora 35 repo. > > I don't see why it's not there, but you can get the package from > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1794350 if you > need it. it's missing intentionally, it has been retired with the following note: obsoleted by citeproc used by pandoc >= 2.11 see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pandoc-citeproc/blob/332594f42adfe5c9653fd27866cc6cb4d83536d0/f/dead.package Dan ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Removing 5.19 kernel; dnf wants to remove 501 other packages too.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:28:07 + (UTC) George R Goffe via test wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having trouble with dnf and the 5.19 kernel. > > I have tried to exclude the 5.19 kernel on this system (FC37) because 1) > Virtual box doesn't seem to support it yet, 2) the system gets stuck during > boot and the boot will NOT succeed (It seems to be running a list of UUIDs). > > The problem: somehow I managed to upgrade to the 5.19 kernel and am now > stuck. dnf seems to want to remove EVERYTHING that it thinks is dependent on > this kernel.I have used this command "dnf --noautoremove erase > kernel-5.19.0-0.rc5.20220707git9f09069cde34.43.fc37.x86_64 > kernel-core-5.19.0-0.rc5.20220707git9f09069cde34.43.fc37.x86_64 > kernel-devel-5.19.0-0.rc5.20220707git9f09069cde34.43.fc37.x86_64 > kernel-headers-5.19.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc37.x86_64 > kernel-modules-5.19.0-0.rc5.20220707git9f09069cde34.43.fc37.x86_64 > kernel-modules-extra-5.19.0-0.rc5.20220707git9f09069cde34.43.fc37.x86_64' > > > which is where the 501 dependencies comes from. > > I am a loss as to just what to do to get 5.19 out of my system. Is this > happenstance a bug? Do all these packages REALLY depend on the kernel version? > > "Normally" I would do something like "rpm --nodeps -e kernel*5.19*". Could > the solution be that simple? > > Any thoughts/hints/tips/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. do you have a different kernel (eg. 5.18) installed? kernel-headers is Required by glibc-devel, thus if you have any "devel" package installed, then they will be removed when kernel-headers will be removed. There is only one instance of kernel-headers installed at any time. Dan ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Troubleshooting live boot on an Intel DH87RL
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:02:04 -0600 Brandon Nielsen via test wrote: > Finally got a chance to install Fedora 37 on most of the machines I have > around here. Interestingly I cannot get Fedora 37 Workstation Live to > boot in UEFI mode on a desktop with an Intel DH87RL motherboard. What > happens is I select the USB drive from the boot selection menu, the > screen goes blank for a few seconds, and then I get dumped back at the > boot device selection menu. > > The same USB stick works perfectly on multiple other UEFI and BIOS > systems. Media tests pass. > > Legacy (BIOS) boot works fine. Secure Boot enabled / disabled does not > change anything. > > I also tested a 20221221 Workstation compose[0] and it does not boot either. > > I suspect this is related BIOS ISO w/ GRUB2 change[1], but I don't know > that for sure. > > I am at a loss for next troubleshooting steps, or even what component to > file a bug against. Suggestions welcome! > > [0] - > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20221221.n.0/compose/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20221221.n.0.iso > [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BIOSBootISOWithGrub2 aren't you hitting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113005 Dan ___ 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: Fwd: [Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate RC-1.5 Available Now!
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:53:41 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 11:48 +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > > Hey All, > > > > We are closing in on the Go/NoGo tonight and We would like to have as much > > feedback as possible on this new 1.5 RC. > > Also, there is a potential nvme bug > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2186358, people with nvme > > storage devices with > > free cycles, we do appreciate you testing this out! > > > > Also, Fedora Media Writer hasn't been tested on Mac and Windows 11, so if > > you have any of those, it would be great to have some > > testing on those as well! > > So, for a bit more back story: the only difference between 1.4 and 1.5 > is (should be, anyway) that the lives and Server DVD of 1.5 include > nvme-cli. Otherwise there shouldn't be any difference. > > We did 1.5 to give us another option to deal with > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2186358 at the go/no-go in > the morning. Unfortunately it seems a lot of images failed in the 1.5 > build because of some kind of network issue - we're missing several > lives, and the x86_64 Silverblue installer image. We probably can't > really ship 1.5. > > So, our options will be to ship 1.4 (i.e. reject or waive the nvme bug > as a blocker), ship some kind of hybrid of 1.4 and 1.5 (i.e. most of > 1.4, but the Server DVD from 1.5, probably), or slip. We'll figure this > out at the meeting tomorrow. FWIW from the alt-arch point of view the RC 1.5 is better (aka more complete) than RC 1.4, which is mainly lacking the s390x cloud images. Dan > > All testing of 1.4 and 1.5 is useful; for 1.5 probably focus on smoke > tests of the Server images, and also confirming that it actually fixes > 2186358 . For 1.4, if folks can fill out any remaining gaps in the > matrices that'd be great. > > Thanks everyone! > -- > 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 ___ 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: [Test-Announce] Fedora 40 Candidate Beta-1.9 Available Now!
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:41:48 + (UTC) rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > According to [the schedule][1], Fedora 40 Candidate Beta-1.9 is now > available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation > testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan > > Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at: > https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/40 > > You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download > locations, and enter results on the Summary page: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Summary > > The individual test result pages are: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Installation > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Base > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Server > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Cloud > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Desktop > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.9_Security_Lab > > All Beta priority test cases for each of these [test pages][2] must > pass in order to meet the [Beta Release Criteria][3]. > > Help is available on [the Fedora Quality chat channel][4], [the Fedora > Quality tag on Discourse][5], or on [the test list][6]. > > Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: > https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current > > [1]: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-quality-tasks.html > [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan > [3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria > [4]: > https://matrix.to/#/#quality:fedoraproject.org?web-instance[element.io]=chat.fedoraproject.org > [5]: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/tags/c/project/7/quality-team > [6]: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/ the Cloud and Container image filenames miss the "Beta" string in the name, not sure, but someone might have mentioned it already ... for example Fedora-Cloud-Base-Generic.ppc64le-40-1.9.qcow2 should be Fedora-Cloud-Base-Generic.ppc64le-40-Beta_1.9.qcow2 I believe. The checksum filename is correct. Dan -- ___ 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
