Re: bugzilla won't let me register.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:45:32PM -0400, Robert McBroom wrote: > Can't access bugzilla for fedora 41. The bugzilla login I've used no longer > works. tried to do a FAS registration but that doesn't work either. Can you perhaps expand on 'doesn't work' ? Do you get an error? > Can access the test forum on hyperkitty but my old login doesn't give me > access. Saw the note to log in using the Fedora access system so I set up a > new account. Get a fancy logo but see no way to go to the list. Nothing > seems to be getting posted on the mailing list. What url are you going to? The list is definitely active... kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ 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: Proposing Beta UT package set enable Release Criteria
On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 11:05:46PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > Hey folks, > > A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea > is to set a "criteria" > to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled by default. Note, we *do* > this and have been doing this for some time and nothing has broken badly > due to keeping UT repos enabled. > This IMO will encourage our community to try to test more Beta images and > package sets which will be served to them when they upgrade to Beta or > install beta from various installation sources. > > Proposed Beta Criteria: > > Release identification > A fedora-release package containing the correct names and information and a > fedora-repos package containing the correct repository configuration for a > Beta Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the > appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the > release repository. I guess spot has been keeping generic-release going, but I don't think anyone from releng has been updating it. I guess it's not been a problem tho... > updates-testing enabled > One specific expectation is that the updates-testing repository and any > corresponding repositories (e.g. updates-testing-modular) must be enabled > for upgrades to beta and fresh installs. *modular* should be gone completely now, so drop mention of it? > Please let me know your thoughts. Seems fine. Thanks for writing this up. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ 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: Can no longer submit kernel regression test results
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 08:40:47AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 09:21 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:26:07PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:19 PM Ian Laurie wrote: > > > > > > > > Performing kernel regression tests: > > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kernel_regression > > > > > > > > I am getting errors submitting as follows: > > > > > > > > Your log file is being submitted... > > > > FAS password: > > > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > > >File "/root/kernel-tests/./fedora_submit.py", line 43, in > > > > submitclient.login( > > > >File > > > > "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora/client/openidbaseclient.py", > > > > line 303, in login > > > > response = openid_login( > > > > ^ > > > >File > > > > "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora/client/openidproxyclient.py", > > > > line 138, in openid_login > > > > raise AuthError(output['message']) > > > > fedora.client.AuthError: Invalid request > > > > > > > > This is new [for me] from today. Is this a known issue or is it just > > > > me? > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > -- > > > > Ian Laurie > > > > FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser > > > > TZ: Australia/Sydney > > > > > > Can you log in to https://kerneltest.fedoraproject.org/ > > > and manually upload the logs? > > > see if that works. > > > > kerneltest was just upgraded, so likely the > > https://pagure.io/kernel-tests.git needs adjustments for the new auth. > > ;( > > > > Sorry about that, we were not aware there was anything else using it... > > > > Logging in on the site should work fine. > > I see Justin stealth-updated it from medical leave: > https://pagure.io/kernel-tests/c/6ca1b0d46fa3ece0a8b24bad49ef83da531576a0?branch=master > has that now been re-deployed and everything, can we tell folks it's > ready to try again? My understanding is that that is the client end. So, as people pull that they could test it? I am not sure that fix will be sufficent, but perhaps? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ 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: Can no longer submit kernel regression test results
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:26:07PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:19 PM Ian Laurie wrote: > > > > Performing kernel regression tests: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kernel_regression > > > > I am getting errors submitting as follows: > > > > Your log file is being submitted... > > FAS password: > > Traceback (most recent call last): > >File "/root/kernel-tests/./fedora_submit.py", line 43, in > > submitclient.login( > >File > > "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora/client/openidbaseclient.py", > > line 303, in login > > response = openid_login( > > ^ > >File > > "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora/client/openidproxyclient.py", > > line 138, in openid_login > > raise AuthError(output['message']) > > fedora.client.AuthError: Invalid request > > > > This is new [for me] from today. Is this a known issue or is it just me? > > > > Ian > > -- > > Ian Laurie > > FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser > > TZ: Australia/Sydney > > Can you log in to https://kerneltest.fedoraproject.org/ > and manually upload the logs? > see if that works. kerneltest was just upgraded, so likely the https://pagure.io/kernel-tests.git needs adjustments for the new auth. ;( Sorry about that, we were not aware there was anything else using it... Logging in on the site should work fine. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ 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] 2023-12-11 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
Could it be something like https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/registration-difficulties-on-chat-fedoraproject-org/39072/52 TLDR: matrix is supposed to show you a 'agreement' thing when you first login to accept, somehow for this other user it got in a weird state where they were not able to accept it or do anything else because it wanted them to accept first. If thats the case, I can ask our matirx contacts to fix your account. I suppose also you could make a new account and try with it to confirm you get the agreement and things work with it? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ 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: freeze exceptions for FTI bugs
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 08:21:18AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > updates-testing is not enabled by default for the upgrade. > > The upgrade process uses whatever repos are enabled *in the current > configuration*. So in the "typical" case, you are upgrading from a > stable Fedora release with default repo configuration, in which > updates-testing is not enabled. Thus updates-testing is not used for > the upgrade. > > This is why we have the policy of accepting clean FTI fixes during Beta > freeze. Yeah, but... when we are 'go' for Beta, we unlock the stable pushes again, so by the time Beta is actually released, most of those packages are already stable and in the base repo, no? Of course that doesn't help testers, but they likely know how to enable updates-testing? It seems like to me easier to just tell them 'make sure your update is stable before beta release day'. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: new criterion proposal: toolbox functionality
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 08:18:07AM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > Hello > > > This has been silent for a long time now but here's the update. > Debarshi and I decided to re-write the whole thing as a changeset[0]. > We DO care about not just the rpm but also the OCI image that we ship > with Toolbx. As a result, we filed a releng ticket[1] where > we justified the following: We need the image ready for branch point, > beta and final and that image be blocked implying we resort to "no-go" > if the expected image is not there at all. If we start building the oci image as part of composes, it will be not failable, that is, if it doesn't compose, the compose fails and nothing is produced. :) Of course, it might compose and still have some kind of breakage and will need testing for that. Note that as far as I know there's not any critera/testing for branch point. We just get a successfull compose there. Beta and Final are actually releases with testing, etc. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Xfce ~ Lost all menu icons in Rawhide and Beta Branch
On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 10:34:41AM +1100, Ian Laurie wrote: > On 2/17/23 09:20, Ian Laurie wrote: > > On 2/17/23 04:32, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Can you file a xfce4-session bug? > > > > No problem, here it is: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170682 > > This is now fixed: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f07f5eede6 > > But the fix is being held back by the freeze, which if my understanding is > correct [it may not be] that means this rather ugly bug will be in the > public beta? > > I think this should be a freeze exception. Feel free to file a request for that. ;) https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug Or if you prefer I can... I guess this probibly should go through freeze, not because of the icon thing, but because the theme settings also aren't applied. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Xfce ~ Lost all menu icons in Rawhide and Beta Branch
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:04:05AM +1100, Ian Laurie wrote: > In Rawhide (fc39) and the beta branch (fc38), with all updates applied, I'm > seeing all menu icons are gone in Xfce... both the system menu and > right-click context menus. > > Seems the Settings Tab in Settings->Appearance now has all options turned > off, including "Show images in menus". Updates did this. So you had an existing working install and updates changed it? I wonder if someone could test the current live images and see if it's happening there? > Ticking this option brings sanity back. Was this really intentional or is > it a bug? I think this deviation from traditional defaults is going to > cause beginners a lot of grief. > > The Xfce updates in the total update payload were as follows: > > xfce4-about-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 > xfce4-notifyd-0.8.0-1.fc38.x86_64 > xfce4-panel-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 > xfce4-power-manager-4.18.1-1.fc38.x86_64 > xfce4-session-4.18.1-1.fc38.x86_64 > xfce4-settings-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 > > I'm guessing it was xfce4-settings that did it? If this was intentional I > think it was a really bad idea. No, I am pretty sure this was not intended. Can you file a xfce4-session bug? Thanks, kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Unable to import public GPG keys in Fedora 38
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 01:23:13PM -0800, Scott Beamer wrote: > > Yep. Lovely. Getting Microsoft and Google to fix this should be easy (ok, > not really). I read somewhere that google has already updated things internally, it's just going thru some process to publish. (I can't recall where off hand). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Unable to import public GPG keys in Fedora 38
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 07:41:47AM -0800, Scott Beamer wrote: > Greetings, > > I've been unable to import public GPG keys in Fedora 38. Example attempts: > > $ sudo rpm --import https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub > [sudo] password for scott: > error: Certificate A040830F7FAC5991: > Policy rejects A040830F7FAC5991: No binding signature at time > 2023-02-15T15:31:30Z > error: https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub: key 1 import > failed. > error: Certificate 7721F63BD38B4796: > Policy rejects 7721F63BD38B4796: No binding signature at time > 2023-02-15T15:31:30Z > error: https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub: key 2 import > failed. > > AND > > $ sudo rpm --import https://packages.microsoft.com/keys/microsoft.asc > error: Certificate EB3E94ADBE1229CF: > Policy rejects EB3E94ADBE1229CF: No binding signature at time > 2023-02-15T15:32:55Z > error: https://packages.microsoft.com/keys/microsoft.asc: key 1 import > failed. > > I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not been an issue in Fedora 37. It's likely the crypto-policy disallowing SHA-1. See: https://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2023/01/31/error-rpmdbnextiterator-skipping-in-fedora-38/ https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/certain-third-party-rpms-fail-to-install-update-remove-due-to-sha1-signature-verification/31594 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2 kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: criterion change proposal: macOS dual-boot
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:55:33AM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > Our current macOS (still called OS X) dual boot criterion says: > > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an > existing OS X installation, install and configure a bootloader that will > boot Fedora." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Final_Release_Criteria#OS_X_dual_boot > > I suggest renaming "OS X" to "macOS" in the section title and in the > criterion text. That reflects the name change that Apple did in the past. > > I also suggest adding this footnote: > "Footnote: Supported hardware > This criterion only covers Mac devices with an Intel x86_64 processor." > > That makes it explicit that we don't support the latest ARM-based M > custom processors, nor the older PowerPC-based devices. I originally wanted > to link to some official Fedora requirements, but we don't seem to have any > (for Macs), so at least a footnote here. > > Thoughts? +1 to those changes, makes sense. I am not sure 100% of intel macs are supported either however. I have a macbook here with the touchbar thing and last I tried it, fedora will boot, but the keyboard doesn't work at all. That was like a year or so ago tho, so I should try again. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Unable to install 3rd party rpm with current Rawhide DNF
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:17:22PM +1100, Ian Laurie wrote: > In testing and playing with Rawhide 20221217.n.0 I found I was unable to > install the 3rd party program bcompare (Beyond Compare) for which I am > licensed. > > With their repo installed "sudo dnf install bcompare" produces the error: > > Error: GPG check FAILED > > However, if I use "sudo dnf install bcompare --nogpgcheck" I get a different > error: > > Error: Transaction test error: > package bcompare-4.4.4-27058.x86_64 does not verify: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 > Signature, key ID 7f8840ce: BAD > > Is this because DNF no longer will accept SHA1? It's because rpm switched to the sequoia gpg handling library, and that library honor's the system wide crypto policy we have set (where the old internal rpm one did not). This policy disallowed SHA1 by default for signatures. > Interestingly, on another Rawhide VM with bcompare already installed and > working, "rpm -q bcompare" produces: > > error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#3507 > Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 7f8840ce: BAD > Header SHA256 digest: OK > Header SHA1 digest: OK > package bcompare is not installed > > This output is clearly wrong, because bcompare is installed and working. > > Is there a way to get around this problem and force the install? You can change your crypto policy: sudo update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:11:43PM -0700, Scott Beamer wrote: > > One thing I should mention, I checked and only 14 of the 37 extensions that > can be installed from the Fedora repos are compatible with GNOME 43. So if > Fedora 37 shipped today, I know of 23 packages that would be broken from the > get-go. > > Also that API issue has been around for *weeks* in Fedora 36 and has been a > source of frustration for me. It's not major, but it is frustrating. Just as a side note there's a "disable-extension-version-validation" setting which you can set to true and it will not do the extension version checks: gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation true You can then see if an extension actually does work fine and just needs it's version check updated, or if it really needs actual porting work to the new version. Also, as an even more aside note here, the gnome-shell-extension-openweather extension is one of the broken ones. It needs porting to new libsoup. Turns out the upstream maintainer ported it a while back, but because ubuntu hadn't moved to the new libsoup, they just reverted it. :( Now that debian is moving to it also perhaps they can re-land the port or have some kind of runtime check and work with either. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Thoughts welcome: interface between automated test gating and the "critical path"
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 03:50:02PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > > I can think of I guess four options: > > 1. Broaden the definition of the "critical path" somehow. We could just > write in that it includes FreeIPA functionality, I guess, though that > seems special purpose. We could broaden it to include any functionality > covered by the release criteria, which would be quite a big increase > but seems like a reasonable and concise definition. Or we could write > in that it includes any functionality that is exercised by the gating > openQA tests, though that seems a bit arbitrary - there's no > particularly great organizing principle to the openQA tests we choose > to run on updates, if I'm honest, it's a sort of grab bag I came up > with. I think this one is best... perhaps we could add something like 'and such package groups as working groups decide are critical to their edition' ? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially gating on Rawhide updates
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:18:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi folks! > ... > > I think doing this could really help us keep Rawhide solid and avoid > > introducing major compose-breaking bugs, at minimal cost. But it's a > > significant change and I wanted to see what folks think. In particular, > > if you find the existing gating of updates for stable/branched releases > > to cause problems in any way, I'd love to hear about it. > > > > Thanks folks! > > One thing I forgot to mention in the original email, the benefit here > isn't theoretical - I've already caught several Rawhide-breaking bugs > early, or been able to identify the cause more easily, because we have > the tests running in staging. Here's an example I just caught: a new > popt version that was sent out today seems to break authselect, which > is a critical problem and breaks all new installs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2100287 > > if nirik catches my message in time before the next compose runs, he'll > be able to untag the new build and the compose won't be completely > broken. If we had this testing deployed in prod and gating turned on, > the update would be blocked automatically. It's been untagged from rawhide and eln. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: criterion update proposal: Keyboard layout configuration in the Initial setup
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 03:22:38PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > This is related to bug 2003253 [1]. As reported in comment 1, our current > "Keyboard layout configuration" criterion [2] specifies where the > configured keyboard layout must be honored. It doesn't specify the initial > setup utility, which seems like a clear omission, because in that utility > you create your system user, connect to wifi, etc, so a correct keyboard > layout is definitely important, and is in line with all the other places > specified. > > I propose to edit the existing criterion and add the following (probably as > the second bullet point): > * In the "initial setup" utility (if applicable) > > So the final wording would be: > > If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that > keyboard layout must be used: > * When unlocking encrypted storage volumes during boot (but see footnotes) > * In the "initial setup" utility (if applicable) > * When logging in at a console > * When logging in via the default login manager for a release-blocking > desktop > * After logging in to a release-blocking desktop, if the user account does > not have its own keyboard layout configuration for that desktop (if there > is such a user/desktop-specific configuration, it must be used when that > user logs in to that desktop) > > > Please comment, thank you. Sounds reasonable to me, +1. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Fedoraproject Wiki unaccessible
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:35:29AM -, Ashish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > Certain pages on https://fedoraproject.org/ are not accessible today. > Eg. > Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Communicate - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help?rd=Communicate > > I came across this when I was trying to access the kernel regression wiki. > Any update on why or am I accessing something wrong? This sometimes happens when backups are being run. :( Unfortunately we haven't been able to find a way to avoid it happening sometimes from some locations. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: GNOME on Wayland does not work on latest Rawhide
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 08:08:36AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:49 AM Igor Raits > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Seems with some latest updates in Rawhide (tbh I haven't updated for a > > ~month) I can't get Wayland working on my laptop anymore. I've tried to > > downgrade mesa, mutter, gnome-shell, kernel and a few other packages but no > > luck. > > > > Is it just my laptop that's somehow broken? > > I've got a similar regression where the session starts in X instead of > Wayland, with a huge stack trace in the journal. So I don't think it's > hardware related. Yeah, I tried to isolate this yesterday without much luck. ;( I tried downgrading: kernel, mutter, gnome-shell, glibc, mesa, systemd. But I might have missed something. Unfortunately, last week was pretty busy for me, so I didn't reboot until the weekend, so I had a pile of updates in that transaction that broke things. :( Perhaps someone else has a smaller list of packages between the normal and broken states? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: post go upgrades (re)testing
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 01:25:50AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > I had an idea and if instead of calling it stable, we call it RC1 > (release candidate 1) and only after adding all the updates in the base > version and (re) testing, we finally call it Fedora 34 stable ? Yeah, we could add a few days in and require the updates repo, but... It makes it really hard in some cases. Like, for example, say we have a RC1, we make the updates repo, and we find some release blocking bug. We make an update for it, but it needs to be in the base repo... so that just 1 update has to compose into the base repo, but all other updates have to go to updates-testing. ie, we have to do more things and it becomes more complex. Bodhi isn't setup to handle both populating a updates/updates testing repos and leting a branched compose compose just some updates into the base repo. More states could be added of course, but it's more work. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: post go upgrades (re)testing
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 10:47:39AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 11:39 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Hey folks. > > > > I wonder if we couldn't add in some (re)testing of upgrades after a > > release > > is 'go' but before it's actually released. We hit at least two issues I > > am aware of with f34 due to multilib. ;( > > > > I'm asking this for years and to not stress and delay to much the > release, I proposed do a second release in this case it would be 34.1 That would be prohibive on resources and there would be a lot of process that we do now once per 6 months that would need to be done in days/weeks. :( So no, I dont think thats a good answer unless we can't avoid it. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
post go upgrades (re)testing
Hey folks. I wonder if we couldn't add in some (re)testing of upgrades after a release is 'go' but before it's actually released. We hit at least two issues I am aware of with f34 due to multilib. ;( first: pipewire.i686 is in the base x86_64 repo and users had/have it installed. pipewire.i686 is pulled into the x86_64 base repo by mutter (mutter.i686 is there and requires pipewire.i686). In any case it is not in the updates repo, so once an update of them is pushed (which it has been), upgrades fail due to the missing packages. I have modified the updates pungi config to whitelist pipewire for multilib and it's in f34-updates now. second: There's still an issue with iptables. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953178 basically the version in the base repo has a 'iptables' package. The one in updates Obsoletes this for a iptables-compat, but yet it's not doing things correctly as users are getting dnf errors. Anyhow, I think it might be good to perhaps schedule some re-resting of upgrades after the 0 day updates repo is populated to try and catch these and fix them before release day. We can't test this fully before there is an updates repo (I mean we kind of can with updates-testing, but it's not the exact same repo). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: All mirror systems for update will be rejected with code 404
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:08:15AM +0100, Joachim Backes wrote: > > > On 3/22/21 10:44 AM, Mark E. Fuller wrote: > > It's two hours later, but I am also in Germany and my full daily upgrade > > (sudo dnf upgrade --refresh) went through fine. > > > > Maybe try again and/or with "--refresh"? > Hi Mark, thank you for your reply, but no success, same result. > > Trying additionally previously "dnf clean all", but without any success. > > Kind regards Update to the latest systemd. It has some systemd-resolved fixes in it. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: F34 problem reporting problem
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 08:11:26PM +, Jan K wrote: > As far as I know there is some work being done on that server, so maintenance > by infra team Yeah, sorry, it would have been down for about 2 minutes. I was trying to fix something on it and had to stop the webserver. You must have hit it just as I was doing that. ;( Anyhow please try again and it should be working... kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Basic criterion proposal: g-i-s shouldn't take 2 minutes to launch
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:13:45AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go > meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release > Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements -> Expected > installed system boot behavior -> First boot utilities (appended after > the existing sentence): > > > If a utility for creating user accounts and other configuration is > > configured to launch, it must be visible within 10 seconds of the first > > boot reaching the launch point. > > Why 10 seconds? Why not? That sort of feels like the maximum length of > time someone could reasonably be expected to wait. A shorter time > might be better. > > I don't particularly love the wording here, but I wanted to make it > clear that it's not 10 seconds from power on, but 10 seconds from the > time the boot up reaches the state where we expect gnome-initial-setup > or its counterparts to appear. Sounds reasonable to me. +1 I mean, I'd be fine changing the time a little or wording, but I agree with the general gist of it. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Development repos accumulating prior daily builds
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 01:53:34PM -0600, Robert G. (Doc) Savage via test wrote: > > Kevin, > > Thanks for submitting those PRs. Do you have a sense of when the > scripts will actually be updated and the older files flushed? The scripts are updated now, but rawhide compose failed today (due to xorg-x11-server-utils being retired and lorax still trying to install it). https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/1117 as soon as that gets fixed and we get a compose the old duplicates should go away. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
heads up: kernel-5.12-rc1 and swapfile corruption
Just a heads up for anyone running rawhide and using swapfiles: There's some nasty corruption in 5.12-rc1. ;( https://lwn.net/Articles/848265/ has details. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: Development repos accumulating prior daily builds
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:53:10PM -0600, Robert G. (Doc) Savage via test wrote: > Not sure if anyone here can address this minor problem, but here goes. > For more than a week The top-level Fedora development repository at > //dl.fedoraproject.org/fedora-linux-development/34 and /rawhide haven't > been deleting the previous datetime versions of isos and other large > files. Example: > > $ cd .../rawhide/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > $ ls -al ...snip... > > That's consuming a lot of unnecessary filespace. Good eye. :) It's a bug that was introduced in a recent change in the scripts that sync rawhide and branched. ;( I just made some PR's to fix it: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1014 https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1015 as soon as those get reviewed this should get fixed. Thanks for noting it! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: newbie question
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 06:17:59PM -0600, David wrote: > At this present state of Fedora 34 and Rawhide, > > I see almost the same exact packages getting the same bumps in version > numbers, with only > the suffix "fc34" and fc35" being the difference. > > 1 )Does this just mean that the identical packages are stored on the > server in a different directory ? > > 2 )Are there any notable differences in the two products at this point ? They are very similar, but will diverge quickly. > I assume that since there is Fedora 34 beta-freeze approaching, that > Rawhide will in the coming week or weeks have differences that are more > noticeable. Right ? If so, which ones ? the kernel ?? git > versions of certain packages ? Right, beta freeze starts tomorrow... so rate of change into f34 will slow way down. Rawhide already has a 5.12 git snapshot kernel (where f34 has a 5.11.0 final). Tools and libraries will also keep being updated in rawhide, which will mean even packages that are otherwise the exact same version don't have the exact same output. > On a personal note, I will likely use Fedora 34 as my only operating > system, and no longer use Rawhide, as > I feel my brain-capacity has been maxxed-out, with whatever I had hoped to > learn from the Rawhide experience.I will likely > have several Fedora 34 SSD's with different DE's. > > That all being said, for the time being I am sadly away from my computer, > having to do things on my phone, and a Chromebook. Sure, lots of people move off to the newly branched fedora at this time and follow it out until release. Then re-upgrade to rawhide and repeat. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: [External] Re: Respins for OEM preloads
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 03:54:53PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:41:13PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote: > > The image has been synced to > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/official-respins/ and the future > > images will be available in the same location. If in case you need to > > provide the image to your users, they can verify the image by the signed > > checksum available in the above link as well. > > Hey Mohan, I notice the CHECKSUM file here is not readable. Fixed. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Proposal to modify: Working Sound Beta Release Criterion
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:10:47PM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > > > > > I think there's a misunderstanding in how all the "frameworks" and stacked > > on top of each other. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but I think > > the layers are more or less like this: > > > > 6. Totem | Firefox | Rhythmbox | Audacity > > -- > > 5. GStreamer | FFmpeg > > -- > > 4. PulseAudio | JACK > > -- > > 3. Pipewire > > -- > > 2. ALSA | OSS > > -- > > 1. Hardware > > > > This is from the headlines at pipewire.org: > *PipeWire provides a low-latency, graph based processing engine on top of > audio and video devices that can be used to support the use cases currently > handled by both pulseaudio and JACK.* > > To me, this sounds more like a replacement of the layer 4 (at least). Am I > wrong to think that devices = hardware? Also, what Wim has told me "*PipeWire > should be an under-the-hood change. No workflow or tools or apis are > changed, so we still use pulseaudio API, jack API, jack tools and > pulseaudio tools for everything. Evaluation of this should be on how > similar the old setup was to the new one, there should ideally be no > difference, nobody should notice a change, ideally.*" does not have to > imply that "sound data" go to PulseAudio first and then to PipeWire. I > believe that PipeWire mimics the PulseAudio ports to handle the situation > by itself. However, I was not able to find any accurate description of how > that actually works in the system, so if you have a link to a place where > the above diagram is to be seen or confirmed, please share it. pipewire replaces completely pulseaudio and jack _daemons_ ie, now you might have jackd or pulseaudio running, after the switch you will just have pipewire. All the pulseaudio clients and jack clients talk to pipewire, and think it's their daemon. They still use pulseaudio-libs and jack libs to talk it, but pipewire daemon "speaks" both those protocols, so as far as they know everything is exactly the same. So, you could adjust your table by making line 4 "Pulseaudio and jack clients" or merging 3 and 4 into "pulseaudio, jack or pipewire daemons". At least thats my understanding. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:41:36AM +0100, Onyeibo Oku wrote: > Is this still active? My Firefox plugins are getting disabled and I > cannot install new ones (they are reported as corrupt). Is there a new > instance of this bug? Yeah, it came back because as Adams says: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908018#c19 "So for the record this bug is back because mstransky switched Firefox back to building against system NSS, but did not patch it as Bob recommended to still allow SHA-1 signatures. I'll see if I can do that." But the fix in firefox hasn't yet landed. Your best bet right now is: sudo update-crypto-policies --set DEFAULT:FEDORA32 for now. kevin PS: no need to cc me on replies to the list. I'm subscribed and read posts. ;) -- > > Regards > Onyeibo > > On Fri Dec 18, 2020 at 5:30 PM WAT, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 07:33 -0700, James Szinger wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:17:21 -0800 > > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > > If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons > > > > will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have > > > > to remove them and re-install them (after downgrading nss). > > > > > > > > For now, downgrade nss or avoid updating to it until things can get > > > > sorted out. > > > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908018 > > > > > > > > kevin > > > > > > I see nss.x86_64 3.59.0-3.fc33 in today’s updates. Is this fixed or > > > are there going to be a lot of unhappy Firefox users? > > > > It's fixed. > > > > > The bug is still open. > > > > Because we still need to do something (or, rather, get Mozilla to do > > something) about the underlying situation. > > -- > > Adam Williamson > > Fedora QA > > IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha > > 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 > ___ > 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: rawhide headsup: glib2-2.67.1 causes gdm crash
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:01:22PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Just another heads up for folks. > > The glib2-2.67.1 update (in the rawhide thats composing right now) seems > to cause gdm to crash here. Downgrading to 2.67.0 everything is working > again. > > I've filed: > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2273 > on it. > > Rawhide users may want to exclude it or gather more information for the > above bug. :) And it was already fixed upstream, I've pushed a -2 build with the patch to rawhide. So, upgrading to 2.67.1-2.fc34 should work until the next upstream release. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
rawhide headsup: glib2-2.67.1 causes gdm crash
Just another heads up for folks. The glib2-2.67.1 update (in the rawhide thats composing right now) seems to cause gdm to crash here. Downgrading to 2.67.0 everything is working again. I've filed: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2273 on it. Rawhide users may want to exclude it or gather more information for the above bug. :) kevin ___ 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
heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons
If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have to remove them and re-install them (after downgrading nss). For now, downgrade nss or avoid updating to it until things can get sorted out. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908018 kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Unable to login to FC34 x86_64 system.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:02:41AM +, George R Goffe via test wrote: > Hi, > > I just upgraded this system after running "dnf upgrade". At the invitation to > login screen I type in any userid and hit enter. I get a message about > "corefile" and "segfault" and "glib_2" which QUICKLY disappears. In single > user mode I'm looking around but don't see anything obvious. There is a > corefile from 2 days ago from "ibus-daemon". I haven't investigated that core > dump yet but wanted to run this situation by this group. Has anyone seen this > problem? I am also able to recreate the problem in single-user mode by > entering "su - anotheruserid" as root and then trying to su - root. This > produces what looks like the segfault message I'm seeing when I attempt to > login. glib_2 appears to be in the message as well. > > Any thoughts/hints/tips/suggestions would be appreciated. > > Best regards and STAY SAFE, This is likely the fprintd bug that Adam mentioned in the list yesterday. ;( So, upgrade fprintd (or remove it). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Rawhide users: don't update to 20201208.n.0 packages (fprintd 1.90.6), console login and su are broken
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:53:05PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > > There were bug reports already that I hadn't found as I was looking for > glibc bugs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905667 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905964 > > so, skip fprintd 1.90.6! There's a fixed fprintd now, however glibc still does have a bug where it doesn't give you your secondary groups on login. This makes it hard to use 'sudo' if you depend on being in the 'wheel' group. A fix is being worked on, but in the mean time as a workaround you can use 'newgrp wheel' and then sudo. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:04:51PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: ...snip... > I'd much rather see something like: > > > Bug details: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875677 > > The bug seems to have been proposed as a blocker/freeze exception in > [comment 13](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875677#c13). > > > That makes it easier to find the blocker/FE proposal with the justification > and everything (including sometimes the criterion). I'm just not sure it's > worth the effort, because usually it's not that difficult to find it > manually with Ctrl+F. And of course the implementation would get messy once > there are multiple and not just one proposal, the bug is reopened from a > previous release cycle, etc. This could be nice indeed. Most of the time you are right and it's easy to find the proposal in the bug... but on occasion there's a ton of comments and it's not so easy. Anyhow, this was just a thought, if there's no way to implement it currently then there isn't. The new process is still a win on lots of other levels. :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Sometimes the ticket titles were not very informative, but thats more > > the fault of the bug really. > > > > Well, we can easily add e.g. the component the bug was proposed against at > the time of the ticket creation. That would add a bit more context. I > wanted to keep the ticket title and contents pretty light, because we don't > have any infrastructure set up to keep the data synchronized. So if the bug > title changes, we don't update it. The same would apply for the component, > or release version, currently proposed blockers, etc. And my worry is that > it might easily become confusing, if we show a lot of outdated information. > We improved that situation at least a little by showing inline images in > the ticket description that poll blockerbugs app and show whether the bug > is open or closed and which trackers it has already been accepted/rejected > with (unfortunately that image loads very slow due to > https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/5012 ). > > We could add plumbing to update the mentioned data, but it's a lot of work > and I'm concerned about reliability. The envision workflow was that you > visit the ticket through blockerbugs web app, and so you already know most > of the metadata from there. Of course if you sign up for new ticket > notifications on the project itself, that's not the case, you're visiting > the ticket directly. I'm just not sure if the cost/benefit ratio is good > here for mirroring the data inside the ticket. Fair enough. I think we can also try and edit titles to be more descriptive if possible also. (On the bug side I mean) > > > Could there be some way to list what critera is being used in the initial > > ticket? > > > > I don't know how we could do that. It's true that sometimes people mention > the criterion in Bugzilla while proposing the blocker, but it's a free-form > text that we can't easily process. Also, often people don't mention any > criterion when proposing this. And then people argue about the best > criterion in the ticket. The arguing sometimes happens even if a criterion > *was* originally proposed. So I don't know how to highlight it. We could provide some kind of numbering/index on the wiki to refer to things? then add a thing to the blockerbugs proposal form to include the section/number of the critera. But I agree that would be work... > > Is there any plans for a cleanup cycle? ie, now that f33 is out, close > > out all the f33 tickets? > > > > Yes, Lukas Brabec is working on it in > https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blockerbugs/issue/114 Great! Thanks for the excellent feedback handling. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 03:06:09PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > Hello, > some of you used the Blockerbugs discussion tickets during the F33 cycle. > I'd love to have your feedback on that functionality. > > As a refresher, those discussion tickets are available from the Blockerbugs > website [1] after clicking on Vote/Discuss links, which forward you to a > ticket available in the blocker-review project [2] on Pagure. In such a > ticket, anyone can vote on blocker bug/freeze exception status of that > particular bug (an example [3]). > > These discussion tickets were created to shorten our regular IRC blocker > meetings and allow people to submit their opinions and votes outside of the > meeting hours. > > *I'd like to know how well it worked, in your opinion.* I think it worked pretty well... > I'd like to learn whether these discussion tickets were a worthwhile > addition to the blockerbugs process, and in case they were, then identify > pain points, annoyances and bugs so that we can improve them. > > So, please reply with anything that's on your heart regarding this topic. > Here are a few suggestions of topics to think over: > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs discussion tickets? yep. I think so. > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs IRC meetings? Yep. Again it seems like some bugs/proposals need more interaactive discussion (not that I was any good at attending any of those this last cycle or two) > * What is your general opinion on discussion tickets, do you like > it/dislike it/don't care? I like them. > * Did you find any annoyances or have any pet peeves with discussion > tickets? Sometimes the ticket titles were not very informative, but thats more the fault of the bug really. > * What would you like to see improved in those discussion tickets or in > their integration with Blockerbugs and Bugzilla websites? Could there be some way to list what critera is being used in the initial ticket? Is there any plans for a cleanup cycle? ie, now that f33 is out, close out all the f33 tickets? > Thanks a lot for your thoughts. 🍪 > > PS: You can also report bugs or request improvements anytime in the future > at [4]. > > Kamil Thanks for putting all this together! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Proposed updates to the FESCo updates policy document
Greetings. FESCo is looking to update the updates policy document that is here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ For the most part the updates are not changing any policy, but simply removing old/no longer accurate information (taskotron no longer exists, bodhi is always enabled, etc) and trying to clarify things. The one actual proposed change is to allow releng to untag builds that have already gone out in rawhide composes. This was forbidden by the existing policy. You can see the PR with the changes: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/40 and if you want to view the changed document: https://pagure.io/fork/kevin/fesco/fesco-docs/raw/updates-update/f/fesco/modules/ROOT/pages/Updates_Policy.adoc (you may want to install a adoc viewing extension in your browser to view it) Feedback welcome here or in the PR. FESCo is likely to look at this next week for approval. Thanks! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: various topics
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 08:16:58PM -0500, David wrote: > My install of Rawhide went smoothly today. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yg08wi8f9abckg1/Photo%20Oct%2003%2C%208%2008%2045%20PM.jpg?dl=0 > > > I see a stable rpm 4.16 replaced the rc-version.Is that a major > milestone ? > Does that mean Rawhide is more stable than it was in previous > months ? How long is a string? :) "stable" is a bit of a fluid concept. Things could very stable for you, but not for someone else with different hardware or usage patterns. Rawhide has been shipping release candidate versions of rpm for a while now, so the move from that to the final release probibly isn't that much change. > I tinkered with Krita 5.0 pre-alpha as an appimage, after rebooting, > and all seems to work pretty good. > > Ephemeral web-browser is now in the fc34 branch, but you all do > know that it ask for a donation.I only used it for a few minutes and it That does not seem very nice, but I guess nothing in guidelines against it. > seemed to work ok. Icecat too, is in the fc34 branch, and I > installed that too.However, my newbie attempts to learn IceCat > have been an epic-failure. I got as far once as the password > dialogue-box > in Gmail, but could not get that far in YouTube. And trying to click on > one of the popular risque web-sites gave a list of a hundred things that > needed to be clicked on and I gave up. IceCat did partially load > every page I tried. ( But that is for another topic ).I can vouch > that IceCat is not for Linux newbies. I will try to learn IceCat someday. I think it's just trying to not load 'non free' javescript, which can make browsing the modern web a bit difficult. > Thank you all for your advice, tips, and hard work. Thanks for your reports and testing. :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Proposal: drop extras-qa from all fedora bugs
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:03:29PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:30:45AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Since time began (Fedora 7), all fedora bugs in bugzilla have had their > > "QA Contact" field set to: extras...@fedoraproject.org. > > > > Bugzilla describes "QA Contact" as: > > > > "The person responsible for confirming this bug if it is unconfirmed, > > and for verifying the fix once the bug has been resolved." > > > > However, also since at least 2007-04-20 emails to that address go to > > /dev/null. (Before that they went to a linux.duke.edu address, so I am > > not sure where they went). > > > > I'd like to propose dropping this from all Fedora bugs. > > > > It's a useless extra email that bugzilla has to generate, network has to > > send and deliver and we have to drop in the bitbucket. > > > > But, perhaps there's some secret clever use for it I am not aware of? > > > > If you can think of some reason to keep it, speak up. ;) > > +1 for me. Just to be sure, bugzilla doesn't require such contact to be set? I tested that on partner-bugzilla and it didn't care if it was unset. I guess the quiet way to do this is just modify the sync script so it drops it from all packages for new bugs, then if we want later go back and remove it from existing bugs if we want to. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Proposal: drop extras-qa from all fedora bugs
Since time began (Fedora 7), all fedora bugs in bugzilla have had their "QA Contact" field set to: extras...@fedoraproject.org. Bugzilla describes "QA Contact" as: "The person responsible for confirming this bug if it is unconfirmed, and for verifying the fix once the bug has been resolved." However, also since at least 2007-04-20 emails to that address go to /dev/null. (Before that they went to a linux.duke.edu address, so I am not sure where they went). I'd like to propose dropping this from all Fedora bugs. It's a useless extra email that bugzilla has to generate, network has to send and deliver and we have to drop in the bitbucket. But, perhaps there's some secret clever use for it I am not aware of? If you can think of some reason to keep it, speak up. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: criteria clarification: HTTP vs HTTPS
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:05:09PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > I'd like to clarify some of our criteria which only refer to HTTP and don't > mention HTTPS. In particular: > > "When using a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer > must be able to use either HTTP or FTP repositories (or both) as package > sources. Release-blocking network install images must default to a valid > publicly-accessible package source." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Remote_package_sources > > "The installer must be able to download and use an installer update image > from an HTTP server." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Update_image > > "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to > use HTTP, FTP and NFS repositories as package sources." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Beta_Release_Criteria#Remote_package_sources > > I propose to change "HTTP" to "HTTP(S)" in all these cases (including > footnotes, where applicable). So, from an infrastructure perspective... we do have http mirrors still. If you are using a metalink there's not any security problem using http, although there is a privacy one (anyone sniffing the traffic can see what you are downloading). We no longer have/support ftp mirrors in mirrormanager, we dropped them a while back. I don't know if this case uses a metalink? Does it? If we want to keep supporting FTP, we may have to test it locally as mirrormanager doesn't support it anymore. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Test-Announce] RIP: Thomas Gilliard (satellit)
Sad news indeed. ;( He will be missed... kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: kernel-5.7.5-200.fc32
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:17:29PM +0200, Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi guys, > > what about kernel-5.7.5-200.fc32 in Koji? Since yesterday, it seems to be in > building process. > Anybody knows when one can expect the building completion? It's done. It got stuck on a ppc64le builder that had it's kojid OOm. We are looking into the problem to prevent it from happening again. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 33 Rawhide 20200620.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:17:27AM +0200, Jaap Bosman wrote: > Hello > > today servers are being moved? > > cannot read > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-and-using-a-live-installation-image/index.html > and other docs. > > will wait until all is clear. It was an issue with the docs pipeline, it should be all fixed now. kevin -- > > vriendelijke groeten Jaap Bosman > > > On 21-06-2020 18:11, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > > Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event > > for Fedora 33 Rawhide 20200620.n.1. Please help run some tests for this > > nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly > > 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://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/33 > > > > 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_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Summary > > > > The individual test result pages are: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Installation > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Base > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Server > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Cloud > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Desktop > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_33_Rawhide_20200620.n.1_Security_Lab > > > > Thank you for testing! > ___ > 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: a question for Rawhide users ( Rawhiders ?? )
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:56:33AM -0500, David wrote: > It looks or appears to me that many if not all packages in Rawhide are > slightly > more recent versions that the ones available via flatpak.I know some > flatpaks > also offer a choice of a nightly version. > > I was just wondering or pondering, which packages Rawhiders, > prefer to run as a flatpak or vice-versa. It's up to your preference. In some cases you might want both. > Would Rawhide be more stable to run all available packages in flatpak > ? > Or is that too cumbersome ? Or does that defeat the > purpose of testing packages ? It would yes. You would be testing flatpak's and their platforms instead. Which isn't completely a bad thing, just different. > I used flatpaks for over a year, but I am not yet a flatpak-lover, or > flatpak-fanboy > or whatever they call themselves. I do not really have a need for the > extra-security > of a sandboxed program. The number one thing about flatpaks that I > like, is that they > are so easy to delete, so I like to install a flatpak of a program that I > am not familiar > with. Well, rpms should be easy to remove as well. flatpaks are handy if you are running silverblue, they are also sometimes nice because the stack some application uses in rawhide is broken somwhere, and you can just use the flatpak until it's fixed. The sandboxing is a nice bonus. Just my 2c. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Testing impact of Red Hat office closure
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:52:05PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: ...snip... > * Testcase_dualboot_with_macOS -- Our old Mac Mini stayed in the office, so > we can't evaluate this one. OTOH, our tests decrease in value every cycle, > because our Mac is archaic and doesn't even contain the latest OS version, > so it differs very much from what is commonly available on the market these > days. I have a new macbook here I can use to test this. I just need to get some spare time to install it. It's one of the new ones with a touchbar, etc. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: a personal usage report - Rawhide Xfce
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 01:44:19PM -0500, David wrote: > Stan, > > I am just trying to become as familiar with possible and to try to > understand why Xfce fans still cling to Xfce. Why? I agree that Xfce is definitely not for everyone, but what works for some may not work for others. :) Anyhow, this list is probibly not the place for desktop advocacy, so I'll stop here. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: f32-backgrounds available for testing
> I can't find the ticket where I went nuts about this before any more, > but I've been saying it for a while :P https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435423 You can blame me, because I said I would work on fixing it, then never did. ;( kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Fedora 33 Xfce report
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:42:16AM -0500, David wrote: > Disclaimer: I am a novice, for the purposes of this > report. We all learn every day, if we are lucky. :) > > Today's Rawhide update went smoothly.I am now on the > third iteration of kernel 5.6.0-rc2. > > I explored the settings of xscreensaver today. I was surprised > that this program is still maintained and that Fedora has the most > recent versions. The developer even writes on this website to > not use Debian, because you won't get his latest version. I turned > off most of the screensavers, but kept a few for nostalgic reasons. There is a Xfce specific screensaver in progress, but it's not quite ready to take over by defaut yet. > > I added Midori web-browser from dnfdragora, to see if my slow internet > speed was related to Firefox.I could not figure out how to get Midori > to even find a web-page.I have never had any luck with Midori.My Should be just like any other browser, open it and type a url in the url bar. > internet is working okay today, and I have complained to my service > provider, and they always ask "What operating system are you using ?" > I do not want to tell them Linux, as they would just say, "Oh, there is your > problem, right there," and try to persuade me to switch to Windows or Mac to > fix their crappy internet service. Yeah, sadly thats still all too common. > Are there any Xfce Rawhide users on this list, and if not, should I stop > reporting > my experience ? How many Xfce Rawhide users in the world are there ? > I would > be surprised if the number was over 100, and I doubt most of those use it > as there > only operating system. I'm sure there are some Xfce users here. Mostly this list is about discussing problems or issues folks run into, so there may not be as much interest in just day to day usage. There's really no way to tell how many users there are for anything Fedora. We don't track things in general... although there is a initiative coming up to hopefully get more information on that: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DNF_Better_Counting kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Closing bug reports
On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 12:28:41PM -0500, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote: ...snip... > Question: Is this an okay thing to do? I asked this once before in the > context of a particular bug and the recommendation was that I should send an > e'mail to the assignee. I just want to determine if this is a good general > case practice. I'd say if you know that they are fixed you should just close them explaining that. If there's some issue and the maintainer(s) want them to stay open they can always re-open them. IMHO, you can always ask also in the bug: "Should this be closed? I think it's fixed and will close it in 1 week unless I hear otherwise" I personally really prefer comments in bugs over needinfo (which seems "pushy" to me? I am not sure why, but I think of needinfo as a escalation over just adding a comment. Sort of a 'hey! you never answered me, and I NEED INFO NOW'. Personal email about bugs has lots of issues too: * What if the maintainer(s) you mail are no longer taking care of the package and just drop your emails, but then someone new takes over the package. That new person(s) would see all the existing bugs, but would have 0 idea of what your emails might have said to the old maintainers. * Are you sending to just the point of contact? Or to all maintainers/co-maintainers? Perhaps some co-maintainer is the active person and the point of contact you send to could care less. * Perhaps some provenpackager sees your bug and fixes it. They can tell you/update the bug, but if you send email to maintainers, they would have no idea it even happened. Anyhow, just a few cents...as others have noticed, there's no hard guidelines here, just be kind and do the best you can. :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:29:40PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > We've talked about replacing blocker bug review meetings with something > else for a long time. The meeting has an upside of a higher communication > bandwidth, but also a downside of requiring participants to be available at > the same time (throughout the world), often being extremely long, and being > scheduled just once per week (because of mentioned downsides). I've put > some thoughts into making the process asynchronous, and you can see all the > options I considered described below. I close up with a proposal for the > best choice I found. ...snip... I do like the idea of making things more async, although we have a poor history of following through on this in other groups. :( > Note that we don't need the blocker bot to be fully or even partially > implemented, just to try this out. We can easily do the bot steps manually > in the beginning and decide whether we like this process, before we start > working on the automation. We can pretty much start testing this right now, > if we want. > > What are your thoughts? Does the proposal sound reasonable? Would you > change something? Would you use a different backend system? Have I > forgotten something important? Feedback welcome. I pretty much agree with all the points you made on the various systems. That said, I think this is kinda a bad time to be doing this change. There's a lot of... (grumblings? rumors? idle converstations?) about the various bug/issue/source/forges we are currently using. I don't know if this means we will move to something else, try and consolidate more on one or what, it's all very vuage at this point. So, IMHO, it's kind of a bad time to be moving process to one or another things that might require you to move again later (be that bugzilla or pagure or whatever). Of course if the process is simple (which I think it should be) it would translate pretty well to whatever system it's used on. As a side note I will note that bugzilla does allow voting also, we just asked them to disable it on the Fedora component. Althought I am not surre it works in a way thats useful for this workflow: Every user gets X vote points per Y time and can distribute them accross bugs as they like. I guess the idea is that then you could see the bugs users REALLY want fixed. I guess I would be most in favor of something leveraging bugzilla, since thats where our bugs are (at least now). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: Fedora 32 Firefox and DNS over HTTPS
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:05:34PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > In the upcoming Fedora 32, is Firefox defaulting to DNS over HTTPS (RFC > 8484)? No. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751410#c2 kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: proposal: move "image size" criterion from Beta to Final
On 9/19/19 12:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 11:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 11:11 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> On 9/18/19 5:54 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> >>>> For the record, it makes me sad that we don't have a good way to know >>>> whether we're in Beta or Final phase, and also that the canonical >>> >>> I was sad about this too, and we needed it in various places in ansible, >>> so I made: >>> >>> https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/vars/all/FedoraBranchedBodhi.yaml >>> >>> >>> You could use that? >> >> oo. yeah, I could. What does 'current' mean? "There isn't a branched at >> the moment"? Yep. > > Oh - and how is this updated? How reliable is it? Is it just another > 'some human has to remember to poke it' thing? yep. A human changes it... but we have it used for a bunch of the bodhi config logic, etc... so it would get changed to set that config at the various points. It's not great, but it's better than nothing I figure... I got really tied of redoing the same configs in ansible and introducing mistakes when really it's all easily templateable if you have the variables. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
Re: proposal: move "image size" criterion from Beta to Final
On 9/18/19 5:54 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > For the record, it makes me sad that we don't have a good way to know > whether we're in Beta or Final phase, and also that the canonical I was sad about this too, and we needed it in various places in ansible, so I made: https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/vars/all/FedoraBranchedBodhi.yaml You could use that? Failing that we should try and get something in fpdc. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
Re: FC31 (rawhide) networking problems.
Just a stabl in the dark: In the past, network-scripts (subpackage if initscripts) was getting pulled in by dependencies, and I think some of these got fixed this last week or so. So, if you were using network-scripts for your network, and it's not installed anymore, install that? Or switch to NetworkManager. If it's not that I am not sure what it would be... check your journal for any errors on boot? kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: Xfce 4.12
On 4/12/19 8:18 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > Hi All, > > Would you guys please consider going back to Xfce 4.12 > in Fedora 30? Xfce 4.13 is just too buggy! Well, this is likely a topic for the fedora xfce list, not the test list. That said, I don't really see that happening... there are some bugs, but most people seem to find them to not be too serious or numerous. You're welcome to try and convince the Xfce sig over on the Xfce list. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: How do I get a change made to a getfedora.org web page?
On 4/8/19 3:25 PM, a...@clueserver.org wrote: > > The page https://getfedora.org/workstation/prerelease/ mentions using the > fedora media writer to write ISOs to USB drives. > > It says you can download it using dnf, but it does not give the package name. > > The package name is "mediawriter". It would be nice it it actually said > that next to where it mentions it. (The link goes to something that does > not mention media writer.) https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/new_issue or if you want to take a stab at a fix in a pull request: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_fix_bugs_on_the_Fedora_Project_website kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: Problem participating in the QA meetings
On 4/1/19 10:37 AM, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote: > I have been lurking at the last few QA meetings, but I must still be > missing something. I followed all the reference pages people were kind > enough to send me. I have Hex Chat set up and I registered at the > website. In fact when I re-did the registration command today, it said > the tablepc is already registered. You may be missing the 'identify' step. After your irc nick is registered, you need to identify to show that it's you (and not some random person trying to use your nick). /msg nickserv identify password where password is the one you setup when you registered. > I can watch the conversations in the discussion panel. I can type > something and it will appear in the discussion panel, but it seems like > no one else can see what I said. Also my name doesn't appear on the list > of attendees when the minutes come out. The only clue I have is that my > user name appears in red. I suppose that might be to mark what I type. > > Any help will be appreciated. Yeah, sorry about this... spammers made us set many of the channels so that registered/identified people only can 'speak'. ;( kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: Rawhide
On 12/21/18 11:55 AM, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote: > Recently I have been doing some testing on the Rawhide drops. I didn't > find any new problems to talk about so far. Just for note, I have not > tested any of the drops where the e'mail called out gating failures. > > Since this is my first time working with Rawhide, I got curious about > what goes on with it through the course of a Fedora release cycle. Welcome to the fun, and thanks for testing... > I imagine that it is continuously getting updates for bugs fixes, but > I'm curious if non stable bug fixes are part of the Rawhide drops. Yeah. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Rawhide_.2F_devel_.2F_master > Do the improvements and additions that do not require mass rebuild get > added to Rawhide as they are available? Yep. All the time. Usually hundreds of small changes a day. > Do the improvements and additions that do require mass rebuild only get > incorporated during the scheduled mass rebuild in each release cycle? Well, changes land when they do, and rebuilds happen when they do, so yeah, sometimes a change will land and then only months later it gets picked up in the mass rebuild (if it's a toolchain change). It just depends. Mass rebuilds are done usually to enable some compiler or the like change... kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: F29-arm update failure
On 10/12/18 3:27 PM, Michael Erwin wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I Saw the same thing as well in every one of my F29 environments, however it > seems to be a script issue, if you rerun the upgrade, the problem for me > didn’t reappear. This is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637496 it's been fixed now, but you may need to do some manual cleanup. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final Freeze
On 10/9/18 2:46 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Am I the only one who's worried that the f29 buildroot is broken right > now, on the day of the final freeze? > > It looks like unbound was updated with an soname bump yesterday. This > buildroot override for f29 is breaking a lot of things right now: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/unbound-1.8.1-1.fc29 > > This is the error: "nothing provides libunbound.so.2()(64bit) needed > by gnutls-dane-3.6.4-1.fc29.x86_64" > > Maybe breaking changes shouldn't be submitted to f29 so late? I don't > see any approved freeze exception for it either, so either the update > should be pulled, or the appropriate paperwork for a freeze exception > has yet to be filed. This was fixed shortly after your email... just needed a gnutls rebuild. I was actually going to do one sunday, but got distracted. ;( In any case I think it's all cleared up now. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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: broken dnf...
On 07/09/2018 02:37 PM, George R Goffe wrote: > Hi, > > I just tried to use yum-deprecated but am getting a screwy message "Error: > Invalid version flag: or". > > > Somewhere in the bowels of yum-deprecated one of the python programs is > having trouble maybe? Can we get someone to fix that please? Thats yum not having the ability to handle rich deps. It's very unlikely that anyone wants to implement rich deps handing in yum at this point, so I don't think this is likely to ever be fixed. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/message/PQ35PU4LG4XBLRRHAYPSIDJ4PVNPRYCH/
Re: kernel update process (failure)
On 03/21/2018 05:25 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > I know this isn't strictly a "test" question. But I think maybe more folks > with > greater insight my be lurking here. > > In troubleshooting a kernel update issue on the user's list it was finally > determined > that if one erased "grubby" the kernel would not get upgraded properly. RPM > would > show the new kernel installed but it would not be in the boot menu and the > needed > files would not be in /boot. There is a scriplet error, but it is called > "nonfatal". > > I feel this to be a bugzilla. So, my question is, should kernel-core require > /sbin/new-kernel-pkg or should it be a "protected" package in the dnf > configuration? > Or something else? Technically yes, the kernel should require new-kernel-pkg since it uses it in the scriptlet. However, this might be a special case, because on some arches we don't use grub2. But perhaps it could be conditionalized. I'd say file a kernel bug or perhaps just mail the ker...@lists.fedoraproject.org list to discuss. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: dracut and grub2-mkconfig hang indefinitely in rawhide, in uninterruptable sleep - 20180128
Hey stan. I ran into this same issue here. It seems it's caused by environment-modules. There's a bug on it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539856 kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Missing DRPMs for F26
On 08/25/2017 09:41 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > Hi, guys. > > I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, but over on the > users' list people have been talking about the fact there haven't been > any delta RPMs released for F26 updates. For those of us who don't have > download limits, this isn't a problem. However, many people do have > these limits and this could present a big issue for them. > > As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to mention this > or if it should be brought up on the infrastructure list. As noted on infrastructure list: Short answer: Yes. We know they are currently not working for f26. Long answer: With the addition of alternative arches in f26, we cannot do drpms the same way as we used to, because some of the packages are under fedora-secondary and some are under fedora. We need a fix for https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1685 in order to get this working again. Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Failed to import GPG keys for Fedora 28
On 08/19/2017 02:15 PM, Bowen Wang wrote: > Hi, > I am currently upgrade my rawhide, it seems I need to import a GPG key. I > looked > in the directory /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/, but I couldn't find keys for fedora 28, > where can I get GPG key for fedora 28? Thanks. It's in /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-28-primary in the latest fedora-repos-27 and fedora-repos-28. If you are in an older release you could get it from https://pagure.io/fedora-repos/blob/f27/f/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-28-primary kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?
On 07/29/2017 06:44 AM, George R Goffe wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by running "dnf > upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a list of packages > with broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best reports 118 or so > "problems". > > I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint please? There is a fair bit of volitility right now due to mass rebuild, tooling changes, etc. Just wait and most of it should get cleaned up soon. The good news is that dnf is doing right here and not applying updates that break anything for you, so you just have to wait until they are fixed and then they will be applied. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 26 Branched 20170617.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing
On 06/19/2017 11:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 06:15 +0200, Alessio Ciregia wrote: >> Missing expected images: >> >> Workstation live i386 >> Kde live x86_64 >> Workstation live x86_64 >> Kde live i386 > > Indeed that's a problem, I'll look into it... Turns out to be a pungi bug... we already have a fix and a updated pungi package on branched/rawhide composers, so it should be back tomorrow hopefully. If you like we can run another compose today... kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Rawhide: where for art thou? (why no rawhide composes recently)
Greetings. Some folks may have noticed that there have been no completed rawhide composes in a while (13 days as of today). This has been due to a variety of bugs and issues, along with pungi now failing composes that don't have all required release blocking items. Here's a partial list: 2017-06-01 - lorax traceback, bug 1457055 2017-06-02 - another lorax issue, bug 1457906 2017-06-03 - cloud base failed in anaconda, bug 1458509 2017-06-04 - ditto 2017-06-05 - ditto 2017-06-06 - pungi bug - https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/641 2017-06-07 - ditto 2017-06-08 - ditto 2017-06-09 - ditto 2017-06-10 - ditto 2017-06-11 - ditto 2017-06-12 - ditto 2017-06-12.1 - pungi bug fixed, but hit libgtop2 broken deps in metacity that failed the comppose. I fixed those (and control-center) last night. 2017-06-13 - still running, cross your fingers. All of this has been made a bit worse by us having some storage slowness which means you can really only do about 2 rawhide compose attempts a day. Thats being worked on and hopefully we will get it fixed soon. You can also see here there were some gaps where we didn't yet have the bug tracked down or didn't yet have a fix in place. We need to try and do better there. (I was out on vacation last week, so it can't always be me). Anyhow, hopefully we will have a rawhide compose today, and if not I will keep poking it to get it going... kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Last released kernel
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:24:29 + Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Russel Winder > wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 12:10 +, Russel Winder wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 11:07 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> > > >> > >> […] > >> > You can always just pull it from koji either via the website or > >> > cli. > >> > > >> > For cli you can use "koji download-build --arch=x86_64 kernel- > >> > 4.10.0- > >> > 1.fc26" > >> > > > > > These packages appear not to be signed. Is that as it is supposed to > > be? > > It depends, sometimes they might still be in the signing queue, > sometimes they might have been replaced before they were signed but I > suspect you're using a f26 kernel on a different release which means > it'll be signed with a different key. Note that if a package is signed and there's a written out rpm with that signature you can download the signed copy with: koji download-build --key= --arch=x86_64 kernel-whatever where keyid is the id of the key you want. Things are signed and written out, but later garbage collected when they are not tagged in any tag thats released. kevin pgpwiuuaZf8SF.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Multiple packages installed
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:40:05 + Russel Winder wrote: > Advice required… > > I have four installations of Rawhide. Three of them seem fine, > consistent, and as expected: all packages except the kernel installed > once and up to date – I keep multiple kernels for fairly obvious > reasons. > > However one machine has a large number of not fully upgraded packages. > The older package is emboldened by dnf and marked @rawhide. The newer > package is not emboldened and is marked @System. dnf seems entirely > happy that this is a consistent situation with no further action > required. Personally I would suggest that dnf is, well, wrong. As an > example: > > ImageMagick.x86_64 6.9.3.0- > 4.fc26 @rawhide > ImageMagick.x86_64 6.9.3.0- > 5.fc26 @System > > Even on the consistent systems some installed only once from the > rawhide repository are marked @System, I am not sure why, I would have > thought it should be marked @rawhide. > > I could manually remove all the old @rawhide packages leaving the up- > to-date @System packages, but this seems wrong on so many fronts. > Sufficiently many that I thought I would become a supplicant here > seeking advice. > > I am hoping that someone will show up my ignorance of the > sophistication of dnf and tell me the one liner that allows dnf to fix > everything. My fear is that dnf has just ## things up and is > incapable of sorting it out. It sounds very much like there was a transaction in the past that didn't complete for whatever reason ( power lost, reboot, etc). You can try looking for that transaction in 'dnf history list' (it will have a big E next to it for error) and then doing a 'dnf history redo N' where N is the number of the transaction. I've had mixed luck with that. sometimes it works, other times packages have changed too much and it refuses. If that doesn't work, then yes, you will need to remove all the older packages with: 'dnf remove --duplicates' Hope that helps, kevin pgpo8DMKOwgzI.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Rawhide-20170227.n.0 compose check report
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:24:20 -0500
Dusty Mabe wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 09:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 17:25 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> >> Missing expected images:
> >>
> >> Atomic qcow2 x86_64
> >
> > There seems to be some sort of problem in pungi-make-ostree:
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1386/18091386/root.log
> >
> > DEBUG util.py:435: + pungi-make-ostree tree
> > --repo=/mnt/koji/compose/atomic/rawhide/
> > --log-dir=/mnt/koji/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20170227.n.0/logs/x86_64/Atomic/ostree-2
> > --treefile=/mnt/koji/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20170227.n.0/work/ostree-2/config_repo/fedora-atomic-docker-host.json
> > --extra-config=/mnt/koji/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20170227.n.0/work/ostree-2/extra_config.json
> > DEBUG util.py:435: Traceback (most recent call last): DEBUG
> > util.py:435:File "/usr/bin/pungi-make-ostree", line 15, in
> > DEBUG util.py:435: ostree.main() DEBUG
> > util.py:435:File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pungi/ostree/__init__.py", line
> > 85, in main DEBUG util.py:435: func() DEBUG util.py:435:
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pungi/ostree/tree.py", line
> > 95, in run DEBUG util.py:435: repos = extra_source_repos +
> > [{'name': 'source_repo_from', 'baseurl': source_repo_from}] DEBUG
> > util.py:435: TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +:
> > 'NoneType' and 'list'
>
> I'll try to track this down tomorrow when I'm not AFK, unless someone
> else gets to it first. If you open an issue to track this then please
> link me to it.
I guess I only replied to the desktop list when I replied to this. ;)
This was fixed I think in https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/542
but we need a new pungi release/version with the fix on the compose
host(s).
kevin
pgpzBYGEg_aHI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Release validation testers: a question
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:02:14 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > Or this order: > > 1. Pick an image to test > 2. Pick a test to run on the image I do this. Usually because I am wanting to test a particular image I care about like the cloud base or Xfce live. I also usually tend to just go through all the tests I easily can while I have the image booted/installed. kevin pgp4uEfvlCtGl.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Does the Rawhide stop rolling?
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:37:46 -0500 Bowen Wang wrote: > Hi everyone, > I haven't seen updates from Rawhide since Monday, does it stop rolling > or frozen? Nope, it's just been broken the last few days. See https://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2016/10/03/how-to-debug-fedora-rawhide-compose-problems/ on how to look and see if it's failing and why. Hopefully we will have a successfull compose this afternoon. It looks like there were several issues to work through. kevin pgpTbMblpVCxC.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Last bodhi-related activity
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:10:58 - "Zdenek Chmelar" wrote: > Many thanks for your help. > Would you be so kind and check Anitya > (https://release-monitoring.org/) as well please? I added several > projects there yesterday but the Telegraphist badge > (https://badges.fedoraproject.org/badge/telegraphist-upstream-release-monitoring-i) > didn't arrive. And as I can see, last one was granted on 30th > September and nothing else since that time (I'm sure more people > fulfilled the badge requirement since that time) I definitely see the messages... but the badge didn't fire off. I'd suggest filing a ticket with the badges folks to look and check. kevin pgpHZmTJxj1Ug.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Last bodhi-related activity
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 19:16:33 - "Zdenek Chmelar" wrote: > Hello all > > I would just like to kindly ask someone to check if my account > (zdenek) works correctly on bodhi. Even if I added some karma these > days, my bodhi profile page still says "Last bodhi-related activity: > 2 years ago". Maybe this "last activity" is not related to karma > activity but to some other. But if someone could confirm, I would > appreciate. Last but not least, does badge appraisal works properly > please? I just realized I'm behind 20 karma evaluations but badge for > 20 karma didn't arrive. > > Thanks a lot for your feedback in advance. There was recently some problems with the bodhi web frontends not properly sending fedmsgs. It's since been fixed. The messages during that period are sadly lost, but everything should be back on track now. kevin pgpOPdPNpSmT8.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to upgrade the Rawhide correctly?
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:14:36 -0500 Bowen Wang wrote: > Hi everyone, > I found the web page about how to upgrade the Rawhide to the newest > version: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade > > there are totally 4 commands > 1. dnf upgrade --refresh > 2. dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade > 3. dnf system-upgrade download --refresh releasever=rawhide > 4. dnf system-upgrade reboot > > I know that the second one is for installing a plugin for dnf. > But what is the differences between 1 and 3,4? Note that the above is the process to upgrade a stable or branched release to rawhide. Once you have a rawhide install, updating day to day is just 'dnf update'. That said, step 1 updates your existing install to the latest packages in enabled repos, 3 then downloads the packages you would need to upgrade to rawhide, the last one reboots you into the dnf system-upgrade and it applies those downloads to bring your stable or branched release to rawhide. Hope that helps, kevin pgpPIMXh2cKSo.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: QA group joining process: new members cannot subscribe to list until approved
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:08:49 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > Hmm, sorry. Someone said this was the case on IRC, and I didn't > actually check - I should have. > > Still, we could probably clarify the join process in any case. I'll > come up with a separate proposal for that. Note that the one change we did make was for the wiki... it needs cla+1 now. We have talked about making a 'wikieditors' group and sponsoring in anyone that needs to edit the wiki to that, but we haven't really sorted that out yet. kevin pgpkK50ag9Km_.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: QA group joining process: new members cannot subscribe to list until approved
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 12:48:39 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! In an IRC discussion with a new member this morning, we > became aware of an issue (possibly some folks knew about this already, > but I didn't!) in the joining process. This is mostly of interest to > qa group moderators/sponsors, but I figured it can't hurt to make > everyone aware. > > Recently, the Powers That Be have made it so you can't subscribe to > Fedora mailing lists until you're a member of the FAS 'cla' group > (which you become a member of by signing the contributor agreement) > *and* one other group. This requirement is intended to combat spam > coming from bots which just create new accounts, sign the CA, then > start subscribing to lists and sending out spam - that whole process > can be fully automated, and has apparently been a real problem. So the > intent is to make sure only people who've been made a member of a > 'real' FAS group by some kind of human, non-automatable process can > join the lists. This is not correct. You absolutely do not need cla+1 to join a mailing list. How could that even be enforced? You can sign into mailman with yahoo or persona (which have no ideas about groups). Fas does, but you can add arbitrary email addresses to your account. In short, this is not the case that I know of, so no adjustment should need to be made. kevin pgpL3RE1RN2FQ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Reset password error
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:22:46 +0530 Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > Hey , send a mail to accou...@fedoraproject.org . I will personally be > checking this as we are onbaording new contributors . We would expect > the system to not give out such errors which might make the newcomers > interest to wither out. Well, we don't intend to do that, but we need to block spammers or the wiki and most of our trac instances would be unusable and full of spam. So, we are trying to train things to only get them, but it's not an easy problem given the little information we have to make the decision with. kevin pgprElwb6YVsJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Propose for onbaording session for new contributors
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:21:55 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 16:27 +0300, Pavlo Rudyi wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 16:58 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > Well the server is also open source, so sure, you could make a > > > private > > > hosted server. Of course you will need to set it all up, have > > > enough resources on the server to run it, have enough bandwith, > > > etc. > > > > > > kevin > > > > > > > Can we have one private hosted server on Fedora Infrastructure for > > the meetings? Short answer: not quickly. Long answer: We have a pretty limited amount of sysadmin cycles, and we are pretty darn busy keeping all the things we have now up and working, so we don't want to just add services at the drop of a hat. The two paths I see for a thing like this: 1. We could stand up a cloud instance and let interested people setup the service and get it all working and that would be minimal impact on the rest of infrastructure. However, this service could be down anytime we do maint on the cloud, if it had problems it would be up to the people who set it up to fix it, wouldn't be monitored or backed up, etc. 2. We could make it a fully supported service. This path starts by people packaging up all the server bits and getting them approved and in Fedora/EPEL. Then we stand up a staging instance do a bunch of stuff to add HA and monitoring and get everyone up to speed on how to support it, make sure there's many more than 1 person around who knows it, etc. Basically our Request for Resources process. > > Is it really necessary? We haven't even run one meeting yet, and in > any case, it's not as if we're going to talk about anything terribly > secret, so what's the problem with using the public hosted server? > Perhaps we can just use meet.jit.si or hangouts for the first meeting > and if we wind up doing a lot of these video/voice chats we can > consider whether we need to request Fedora infrastructure for them... Right. I am not sure what the concern here is with using the provided service. ;) We used to run a asterisk service. It ended up getting about 2-3 calls... a month, and some of those were admins testing that it was working. So, we dropped it, since that was a very inefficient use of our time. (The orig folks who set it up left, we had to keep maintaining packages for it and updating things for security issues all the time, etc). Anyhow, thats pretty long winded, but basically I agree with Adam. ;) kevin pgpwTwL6Yg2LH.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Propose for onbaording session for new contributors
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:24:32 +0100 Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Ter, 2016-06-28 at 09:17 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Well, if you use https://meet.jit.si/ (Their hosted server) you > > can use any web browser, it doesn't need any kind of dedicated > > client. > > and can we have one private hosted server ? Well the server is also open source, so sure, you could make a private hosted server. Of course you will need to set it all up, have enough resources on the server to run it, have enough bandwith, etc. kevin pgpJ0I2Zrv5d_.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: DRPMs
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:26:38 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "RW" == Russel Winder writes: > > RW> From what I can see DRPMs for Rawhide have not been picked up by > RW> the mirrors for quite a long time now. > > I don't believe drpms are generated for rawhide. I'm not sure they > ever have been. They have been in the past, but they appear to be broken since the move to pungi4. I've filed: https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/344 for this. > RW> Does this mean that the DRPM system is being abandoned? > > Do you not see drpms being generated for all of the release branches? > (I certainly do.) If so, how could you come to the conclusion that > drpms are being abandoned? Right. They are not at all, no matter how much I might like it from the server side. ;) kevin pgpXirWtOGQ7q.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Propose for onbaording session for new contributors
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:17:22 +0300 Pavlo Rudyi wrote: > On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 03:16 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Sex, 2016-06-24 at 10:12 +0800, Dev wrote: > > > > > > I found opensource alternative - https://jitsi.org > > > > I found 2 rpm spec to build it on Fedora : > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:zhonghuaren/jitsi/j > > it > > si.spec?expand=1 > > > > https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/blob/master/resources/install/rpm/SPEC > > S/ > > jitsi.spec > > > > I'm very surpsised that jitsi isn't available in Fedora/RPMFusion. Well, if you use https://meet.jit.si/ (Their hosted server) you can use any web browser, it doesn't need any kind of dedicated client. kevin pgpu6T6Xdg1Rx.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Just checking…
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:58:29 -0600 Michal Jaegermann wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 01:14:16PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > > On current Fedora Rawhide It seems that GDM starts but then hangs as > > there is no Xorg and no Xwayland. Is this other people's situation > > or am I alone in seeing this problem? > > AFAICS at least X is broken in rawhide for quite a while. See > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336521 > for more. So far no reaction of any kind. Sorry to hear that... but thats a bit over the top isn't it? X is broken for you on your hardware. It works fine for me here and I think at several others, so it's not completely broken. Anyhow, will try and get some X folks to look at that bug... sounds like it might be affecting all ATI folks. kevin pgpKNFvbzTh51.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: everybody i686 Rawhide have broken DNF?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 02:48:34 -0400 Felix Miata wrote: > # rpm -qa | grep curl > curl-7.49.1-2.fc25.i686 2016-06-03 12:07 297K > libcurl-7.49.1-2.fc25.i6862016-06-03 12:07 273K > python3-pycurl-7.43.0-3.fc25.i686 2016-04-14 08:44 240K > python-pycurl-7.43.0-3.fc25.i686 2016-04-14 08:44 240K > > # dnf update > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 57, in > from dnf.cli import main > File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dnf/__init__.py", line 31, > in import dnf.base > File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 26, in > from dnf.comps import CompsQuery > File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dnf/comps.py", line 29, in > import dnf.util > File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dnf/util.py", line 31, in > import librepo > File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/librepo/__init__.py", line > 1070, in import librepo._librepo > ImportError: /lib/libcurl.so.4: undefined symbol: > nghttp2_session_callbacks_set_error_callback Not happening here on x86_64... does rpm -V curl libcurl show any problems? Might be some 32bit fallout from fixing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340757 ? kevin pgpRNpA09f08G.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Rawhide, Systemd, and Samba
On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:42:39 +0100 Russel Winder wrote: > Hi, > > Systemd is currently blocked from upgrading for me due to a problem > with a samba dependency. Trying to remove the Samba dependency so as > to do the upgrade indicates that gdm and much of GNOME Shell would be > removed – clearly not an option. It's already been rebuilt a while ago, but rawhide composes have been failing so the fixed samba version isn't yet in repos. You could get it from koji or just wait for the next completed compose. > > Is it really the case that Samba is so hard wired into the Fedora > package dependencies? Sure, otherwise the deps wouldn't be there. ;) samba uses (optiionally) systemd logging. samba libs are linked to by a lot of things to provide samba support. kevin pgpNiFB2uYo4Y.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ? wayland live image ?
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:27:29 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 18:08 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Friday, March 25, 2016 12:25:08 AM CDT cornel panceac wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > Is there a Wayland live image available? > > > If not, how can one be created? > > > Cornel > > > The workstation Live should be using wayland > > No it isn't. Wayland by default for F24 was walked back, we're still > X. Yep. Except gdm still uses Wayland by default... it's just the gnome session then from there is default X11 (but you can choose Gnome wayland to stay in wayland). kevin pgptKIIkxumyb.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Next push to F24?
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:15:49 +0100 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:54:30 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?page=22&releases=F24 > > > > > > There are 22 pages of updates for F24 and push requests as old as > > > 11 days. When will be the next push to "stable"? > > > > Once Alpha gets signed off... same process each release, we freeze > > at Alpha/Beta/GA and bits only go to testing until it's signed off > > and goes out. > > How has the broken libcue been released then, if it's not possible > to fix the mess it has caused? I guess you are talking about libcue-2.0.1-2.fc24 ? It landed before bodhi was enabled so it went right in. If there's package(s) that are rebuilt against it and fix broken deps or other issues, you're welcome to propose them for a Freeze break: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/24/alpha/buglist Or they should go out as soon as alpha is go. kevin pgpdoZz7TXCu6.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Next push to F24?
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:43:51 +0100 Michael Schwendt wrote: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?page=22&releases=F24 > > There are 22 pages of updates for F24 and push requests as old as > 11 days. When will be the next push to "stable"? As soon as Fedora 24 Alpha is signed off on, and everything for Freeze break/blockers are pushed, the updates will get pushed. kevin pgpqKG9jwCW2B.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: how to create grub rescue kernel entry?
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:52:44 -0600 Michal Jaegermann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:09:49AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > I should be generated when you do a kernel install next. > > > > > though I do wonder how my resuce > > kernel from 2013 will do with a fedora 24 system > > As you say - if you will remove an existing rescue kernel and its > initrams just before installing a new kernel then a rescue will be > "refreshed" from the one you are now installing. Assuming that you > installed required dracut support and you do not have > 'dracut_rescue_image="no"' in your dracut configuration. > > This actually worked wherever I tried. I removed the entry from my grub2-efi.cfg and it never came back until I realized that I hadn't removed the rescue stuff from /boot. if you have an old rescue kernel and initramfs it won't make a new one. Removing those and installing a new kernel did make it work. So, to cleanly remove it: * remove the grub2* entry * rm the stuff from /boot * dnf remove dracut-config-rescue kevin pgpj8fBbKIIBe.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 24: i686 images no longer 'release blocking'
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:49:06 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > i.e. they're actually marked 'i386' and are in a directory called > 'i386'. > > CCing Jan and nirik (who's shown as creating the page in the edit > log). Yeah, just missed/typo/mistake. I have changed them to the i386 path and marked them "no" for blocking. kevin pgpUsHtt99rkj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Criteria proposal: applying 'post-install' criteria to live and appliance images
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:21:33 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! I'm working through some criteria issues that came up > during F23 validation. ...snip... > Does this general approach sound good? If so, I'll post some drafts > later in the week. Thanks! Sounds good to me. kevin pgp73HharLg7o.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: off topic: mailing list management
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:57:27 -0700 Chris Murphy wrote: > I don't know what other list to post this in, or if I should just file > an infrastructure ticket. Whatever works. ;) > > The problem is, I can't find mailing list management anymore. It used > to be possible to remain subscribed to a list but disable getting > emails; or switch to or from digest, and a whole bunch of other > checkable/uncheckable options. I can't find that anymore. For this list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test.lists.fedoraproject.org/ > Also, when signing up for a list, it will only let me use my > @fedoraproject.org email address. It won't accept an arbitrary email > address. It won't list the email address in my FAS account either. Login with your @fedoraproject.org address, then go to: my settings -> add email address and you can add any existing email address to your account. (Of course after you confirm it). This is actually now done automatically, but if you logged in soon after things were deployed it wasn't setup to do that so you may have to do it manually. Hope that helps. kevin pgpzDdqwuTv2Y.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Bodhi downgrading packages in stable releases
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:45:43 - "Andre Robatino" wrote: > I think you're looking at the wrong time period. I don't think so, but it's possible. :) > libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 > went to stable on 2015-11-23 (see > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9199a1bfe1 ). At > this time, 1.6.17-3 had already been pushed to testing and was just > sitting there. Then it was submitted for stable on 2016-01-06 and > went to stable on 2016-01-07 (see > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4ad4998d00 ), > downgrading the newer version. The time it went stable doesn't matter. The time(s) that matter were when the newer one was submitted as an update and what time the previous older one was being pushed. My contention is that the older one was in a push (and thus locked) when the newer one was submitted (so bodhi couldn't obsolete it). Then both updates were still live after that. (one in testing and one pending testing in the next push). Ideally here bodhi would queue up the obsoletion event and after the push check to see if any updates went to testing that should be obsoleted (then it would be unpushed and the new one would go out in the next updates-testing push). kevin pgp3THs9K2ImD.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Bodhi downgrading packages in stable releases
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:54:29 - "Andre Robatino" wrote: > I don't see which of those apply for any of the three packages in the > bug. Are you sure you're not talking about the old bodhi? -- Wed Nov 18 02:23:16 2015: libpng-1.6.17-3.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-candidate by phracek Wed Nov 18 02:24:32 2015: libpng-1.6.17-3.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-testing-pending by bodhi Thu Nov 19 03:23:02 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-candidate by phracek Thu Nov 19 03:24:38 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-testing-pending by bodhi Thu Nov 19 05:33:28 2015: libpng-1.6.17-3.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-candidate by bodhi Thu Nov 19 05:33:28 2015: libpng-1.6.17-3.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-testing by bodhi Thu Nov 19 05:34:09 2015: libpng-1.6.17-3.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-testing-pending by bodhi Fri Nov 20 01:43:01 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-candidate by bodhi Fri Nov 20 01:43:01 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-testing by bodhi Fri Nov 20 01:43:09 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-testing-pending by bodhi Sat Nov 21 01:07:00 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 tagged into f23-updates-pending by bodhi Sun Nov 22 02:56:00 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-testing by bodhi Sun Nov 22 02:56:00 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 tagged into f23-updates by bodhi [still active] Sun Nov 22 02:56:41 2015: libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 untagged from f23-updates-pending by bodhi That to me says the first one was submitted to testing then was going right out in a bodhi push (bodhi tags things into -pending at the start of it's run, then untags them at the end (this is to allow qa to operate on them)). While that was pushing the next one was built and submitted to testing, so not obsoleted. I can look at the other ones too, but don't have time right now, I really think it's the same thing tho. kevin pgp8SGl4t1Vo2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
