-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/12 23:32, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Is it just me, or is it getting harder and harder to debug Fedora
startup problems?
We'll see if an old dog can learn new tricks...
More general:
If you're hit by some bug, you get lost; nowadays
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Matthias Runge wrote:
More general:
If you're hit by some bug, you get lost; nowadays sooner than later. I
can't count, how many times I had some error getting X up (or even
system up) since the move to systemd.
Next sad thing is, it isn't reproducible every time. Since
Because nobody had any objections, I've added new criterion to [1] and
I've changed release level of [2] to final.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Final_Release_Criteria
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Cmdline
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 09:55 -0800,
If you have some objection on this one, please, let me know till
tomorrow, otherwise if there are no suggestions I'll make changes.
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr
OK, it looks like discussion ended, so I've moved [1] to beta release
level in [2]
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_17_Install_Results_Template
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 08:35 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed,
I installed a system fresh with Fedora 15 when it was released. I
configured the file system to have root on a software RAID 1 and then
encrypted the ext4 file system inside of the raid.
I tried to upgrade to F16 a few days ago and ran into an Anaconda
bug[1]. Is my particular use-case
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:55:11AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
In regards to the bug, am I stuck doing a yum
upgrade or is there a possible workaround to use preupgrade?
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753421
Just guessing here but if you are using preupgrade then you
On 11/02/12 01:03, Rob Healey wrote:
Greetings:
Ever since upgrading from F16 to F17 now to Rawhide, I have been getting
this warning message, and I am NOT sure if anyone else is too? Is this
on the radar of Fedora yet, and if yes, is there a workaround of not?
--
Sincerely yours,
Rob G.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:59 PM, David Lehman dleh...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
worse with regard to installing GRUB to a partition's primary sector.
Partitioning hasn't
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:59 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
worse with regard to
Because there was no suggestions, I've made changes. [1] is non-blockig
now. And I have amended criterion in [2].
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_save_traceback_to_remote_system
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Alpha_Release_Criteria
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 16:47 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:33 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
I propose to remove [1] test case as we don't need it anymore. EFI
booting is handled by regular image.
[1]
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:25 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:16 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
I did Fedora 16 Respin iso install with all latest packages, including
latest Anaconda package, and still had this issue.
There were two ntfs partitions (Windows 7 +
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 17:21 +0100, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a really mayor but and I don't understand it why it fails when
I tried grub2-install --force then grub installs without issues :(
This should have been a blocker Fedora bug.
anaconda already uses grub2-install
Just wanted to make note of the current status of proven testers. As
decided by FESCo late last year, proven tester feedback now has exactly
the same status as non-proven tester feedback, effectively rendering it
pointless to be a proven tester.
I have added a note about this to the proven tester
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 10:59 +, M A Young wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Matthias Runge wrote:
More general:
If you're hit by some bug, you get lost; nowadays sooner than later. I
can't count, how many times I had some error getting X up (or even
system up) since the move to systemd.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 18:20:38 -0800,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
As noted there, and as discussed at meetings and with FESCo, I'm hopeful
we'll be able to make use of proven tester status again once Bodhi 2.0
hits. Therefore I don't think we should take down all the
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 08:55 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
I installed a system fresh with Fedora 15 when it was released. I
configured the file system to have root on a software RAID 1 and then
encrypted the ext4 file system inside of the raid.
I tried to upgrade to F16 a few days ago
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 18:30 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 10:59 +, M A Young wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Matthias Runge wrote:
More general:
If you're hit by some bug, you get lost; nowadays sooner than later. I
can't count, how many times I had some
On 02/13/2012 08:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd suggest that this is 'supported' in terms of the release criteria,
under the Final criterion The installer must be able to create and
install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered
in a default installer configuration,
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 21:04 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 02/13/2012 08:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd suggest that this is 'supported' in terms of the release criteria,
under the Final criterion The installer must be able to create and
install to any workable partition layout
On 02/13/2012 09:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Yes - it has, what, a hundred or so tests? Most of those could be
combined with at least one of the others...you don't need to be able to
do the math very precisely to realize that we can't, practically
speaking, have a test case for*every possible
22 matches
Mail list logo
