> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
> >If you
> > pick Server or Cloud Edition using Everything netinstall, you get ext4
> > on LVM with a massive /home volume rather unsuitable for servers, and
> > no free space in the VG for docker-storage-setup to configure for
> > itself.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>If you
> pick Server or Cloud Edition using Everything netinstall, you get ext4
> on LVM with a massive /home volume rather unsuitable for servers, and
> no free space in the VG for docker-storage-setup to configure for
> itself. Everything net
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> One solution here is to make Everything netinst release blocking. There is a
> good use case for that, it's the most universal install medium we have (you
> can install anything from it). A different solution is to mark e.g. Server
> netins
On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 08:44 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > > Idea #2: Do not block on optical media issues for Final release for
> > > > certain
> > > > flavors/image types (Server, netinst)
> > > > ~~~
> >
> > The outcome se
> > > Idea #2: Do not block on optical media issues for Final release for
> > > certain
> > > flavors/image types (Server, netinst)
> > > ~~~
>
> The outcome seems to be we should block on Workstation Live and Everything
> net
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 09:50 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> That is interesting. I poked Jan Sedlak and asked him to look whether
> we could mount some images as hdd devices in OpenQA, so that
> potential dd-related problems are discovered immediately.
We planned to do this at the time, just that no-o
Let's close this up.
> > Idea #1: Do not block on optical media issues for Alpha and Beta releases
> > ~
Nobody argued against this since last time, so I'm going to propose criterion
adjustment on the test list.
> > Idea #2
> Qemu CD/DVD device and actual optical drives should have the same
> dependency. I know the example case [1] it was a BIOS bug that
> syslinux was able to work around with an update. We'd never find such
> a thing unless someone runs into it with affected hardware, which did
> happen and that's ho
> The iDRAC/iLO/BMC/IMM mounting systems seems to work in the same way
> that the qemu uses the iso image to boot. Whatever causes 'real'
> hardware to fail in certain cases does not seem to affect the remote
> mounting systems or the qemu.
>
> I have used the remote booting quite a lot and at lea
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 19 December 2016 at 10:36, John Florian wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 15:49 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
>>
>> All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
>> present it as optical media. The feature i
On 19 December 2016 at 10:36, John Florian wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 15:49 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
>
> All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
> present it as optical media. The feature is basically only used for
> emergencies where regular networking won'
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
>> present it as optical media. The feature is basically only used for
>> emergencies where regular networking won't do, like when I want the normal
>> network environm
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 15:49 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
present it as optical media. The feature is basically only used for emergencies
where regular networking won't do,
My co-workers use iDRAC installs for non-emergency c
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 15:49 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
> present it as optical media. The feature is basically only used for
> emergencies where regular networking won't do, like when I want the normal
> network environment
> All the DRAC/iLO/BMC systems I play with these days mount a remote ISO and
> present it as optical media. The feature is basically only used for
> emergencies where regular networking won't do, like when I want the normal
> network environment for the process and don't want to bother the network
> I prefer to install from DVD. By far. And it's always nice to give away DVDs
> to classmates or colleagues, or in release parties, FAD, etc.
> My thoughts.
> Cheers,
> Sylvia
If you're talking about Workstation Live, then you shouldn't be affected. Or
are you talking about a different flavor?
_
On 15/12/16 15:14, Keith Keith wrote:
>We haven't received as much feedback as I hoped for. Maybe people
don't care enough about optical disks to even respond, or it might be
a different reason.
I must have missed this and deleted it by mistake.
I had something weird happen when F23 was t
On Dec 15, 2016 08:09, "Matthew Miller" wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:31:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > This is interesting. Does IPMI also allow you boot from a "remote
> > USB device"?
> Not any of the servers I've worked with. Only remote DVD boot. I've
> never heard of anyone being abl
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Note "nobody argued for". A close corollary is: "Nobody said: hey, I
> depend on physical KDE optical media, so I promise to test it for each
> Fedora Alpha, Beta, and release."
That's because of the previous step of making Fedora KDE a second-class
citizen, the discontinu
On 12/16/2016 04:04 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 06:32:36AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
- Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live DVDs.
If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live would
break, but not impossible. If such thing ha
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 06:32:36AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > - Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live DVDs.
> > If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live would
> > break, but not impossible. If such thing happens, are people OK with
> > releasi
> I mean this bug[1] that became a thing ever since we split up the
> kernel into lots of subpackages. Anaconda/DNF will install the wrong
> variant (like debug instead of regular) of any kernel subpackage
> because they all provide (and rightfully so) the same name. It breaks
> stuff as simple as
> On December 15, 2016 9:32:36 PM PST, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> >Kamil Paral wrote:
> >> - Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live
> >DVDs.
> >> If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live
> >would
> >> break, but not impossible. If such thing happens,
On December 15, 2016 9:32:36 PM PST, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
>Kamil Paral wrote:
>> - Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live
>DVDs.
>> If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live
>would
>> break, but not impossible. If such thing happens, are people OK
Kamil Paral wrote:
> - Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live DVDs.
> If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live would
> break, but not impossible. If such thing happens, are people OK with
> releasing Fedora XX KDE Live only bootable over USB?
Yet
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 14:04 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 14:37 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > It is essentially the same core issue, yes. It can happen with Yum,
> > > but for some reason, it happens less often.
> >
> > yum had rath
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 14:37 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It is essentially the same core issue, yes. It can happen with Yum,
> > but for some reason, it happens less often.
>
> yum had rather different logic for resolving ambiguous dependencies
> than lib
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 14:37 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> It is essentially the same core issue, yes. It can happen with Yum,
> but for some reason, it happens less often.
yum had rather different logic for resolving ambiguous dependencies
than libsolv does.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Mo
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 13:22 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 07:31 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > > and even if it
>> > > did, that would likely be the equival
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 13:22 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 07:31 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > and even if it
> > > did, that would likely be the equivalent of a netinstall, and
> > > netinstalls are broken until some
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 07:31 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> and even if it
>> did, that would likely be the equivalent of a netinstall, and
>> netinstalls are broken until someone does something about how kernel
>> package flavors are selected
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 07:31 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> and even if it
> did, that would likely be the equivalent of a netinstall, and
> netinstalls are broken until someone does something about how kernel
> package flavors are selected and installed.
Sorry, what do you mean by this? And how is it
> I had something weird happen when F23 was the latest release. Somehow,
> probably through user error, I deleted my partition table and bricked my
> only USB stick. I think I corrupted the USB stick firmware somehow. I have
> only one computer so using another to get another copy wasn't an option.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Now that Fedora 25 is out of the door, I'd like to start a discussion
> about
> > the future of officially-supported (meaning rigorously tested) optical
> media
> > for future Fedora releases.
>
> The discussion died off, so let me summarize
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:31:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > This is interesting. Does IPMI also allow you boot from a "remote
> > USB device"?
> Not any of the servers I've worked with. Only remote DVD boot. I've
> never heard of anyone being able to do remote USB or disk device, as I
> think t
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:08:13AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Idea #1: Do not block on optical media issues for Alpha and Beta releases
> > ~
> This is the less controversial idea, I believe. We received a concern
> from Mat
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Admittedly, I have not gone through the whole thread, but I'd like to
>> point out that I *do* use the DVD and netinstall ISOs for optical
>> media boot on real hardware, though in a somewhat indirect manner.
>> Many of the servers I use have
> Now that Fedora 25 is out of the door, I'd like to start a discussion about
> the future of officially-supported (meaning rigorously tested) optical media
> for future Fedora releases.
The discussion died off, so let me summarize and propose a plan.
We haven't received as much feedback as I ho
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
> No, impossible, now it's read only.
This is one way flash drives die. It could also be a firmware bug. But
in any case it's not due to writing Fedora installation media or we'd
have a thousand complaints like this if it were happening even 1%
> Admittedly, I have not gone through the whole thread, but I'd like to
> point out that I *do* use the DVD and netinstall ISOs for optical
> media boot on real hardware, though in a somewhat indirect manner.
> Many of the servers I use have IPMI, which allows me to have it boot a
> remote DVD devi
On 11/12/16 19:21, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
On 07/12/16 15:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
images are used a lot for VM
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
>
>
> On 07/12/16 15:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
> images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal.
>
>
On 07/12/16 15:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal.
Well, your view - I have been using netinst-ISOs only, in recently
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
>
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 11:22, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>> On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I use the Server netinstall image. Use cases include loop mounting
>>> the netinstall .iso on boxes w
On 8 Dec 2016, at 11:22, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton
wrote:
I use the Server netinstall image. Use cases include loop mounting
the netinstall .iso on boxes with Grub2 -- works on remote boxes
where there is no physical access and
On jueves, 8 de diciembre de 2016 8:44:19 AM CST Thomas Gilliard wrote:
> On 12/08/2016 08:22 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> > [1] https://boot.fedoraproject.org/
> > [1
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> > Which images to cover, that's the heart of the discussion. If you
>> > look into our test matrix again, we currentl
On 12/08/2016 08:22 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
Which images to cover, that's the heart of the discussion. If you
look into our test matrix again, we currently block on 6 of the
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Which images to cover, that's the heart of the discussion. If you
> > look into our test matrix again, we currently block on 6 of them:
> > * Workstation Live + netinst
> > *
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 13:56 -0500, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> I use the Server netinstall image. Use cases include loop mounting
> the netinstall .iso on boxes with Grub2 -- works on remote boxes
> where there is no physical access and can be easier than setting up a
> remote PXE solution -- an
The "get it installed or rescued" use cases: The most universal image
for this is net install ISO, so one of those being the blocking image
to test on baremetal makes sense to me.
The "live + read only + verifiable" use cases: I'd say either
Workstation or Security spin could meet this use case. S
On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
Which images to cover, that's the heart of the discussion. If you
look into our test matrix again, we currently block on 6 of them:
* Workstation Live + netinst
* KDE Live
* Server DVD + netinst
* Everything netinst
What comes first to my mind is S
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 16:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/07/2016 04:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > Do you burn them to actual physical spinning optical media?
> > >
> > > Nowadays, I usually put them on USB-sticks or
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 08:49 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I think there are two things combined. The first one is blocking
> status. I'd like to have blocking status set exactly for that
> milestone which we believe it should block (and not an earlier one,
> just in case). The second thing is detecti
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 11:15 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2016 18:11, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > > W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
> > >
> > > > All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA tim
On 12/07/2016 04:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Do you burn them to actual physical spinning optical media?
Nowadays, I usually put them on USB-sticks or SDCards. However I
also have to admit having resorted to using optical media o
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >Do you burn them to actual physical spinning optical media?
>
> Nowadays, I usually put them on USB-sticks or SDCards. However I
> also have to admit having resorted to using optical media on very
> rare exceptional conditions.
Oh
On 12/07/2016 03:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal.
Well, your view - I have been using netinst-ISOs only, in recen
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:49:12AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Since you're +1 here, do you have any opinion which release
> flavors/image types should be exempt from optical boot
> guarantee/criteria, and for which we should keep it? You have far a
> better overall idea of the project than I do.
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
> >images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal.
> Well, your view - I have been using netinst-ISOs only, in recently years ;)
Do you burn them to actual p
> > Idea #1: Do not block on optical media issues for Alpha and Beta releases
> > ~
>
> My concern here is that if we don't make it a blocker for at least beta
> but do for final, it's setting us up for a scramble at final tim
On 12/07/2016 11:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 06/12/2016 18:11, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more
effectively. You can see t
> I would favour to make optical media issues blockers for beta so they'll be
> (hopefully) solved by the time of the final release.
If something is a blocker, it's a blocker. If we detect such an issue before
Beta, Beta can't be released until it is fixed.
___
> 2) Just a thought - would it be more efficient to test ISOs in VMs to some
> point?
> For example, till the Alpha release, evertyhing mentioned here as a subject
> of possible changes could be tested only on VMs. After Alpha release, test
> would change to manual on real HW.
It might not be comp
> > Virtual machines are great for convenience, but they are not real
> > hardware and we cannot in good conscience release our product without
> > testing it on real machines with real media.
>
> It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
> images are used a lot for VMs, b
On 06/12/2016 18:11, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
>>
>>> All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more
>>> effectively. You can see the current coverage e.g. in this ta
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 23:57 +0100, Michal Schorm wrote:
> It sounds reasonable to take a while and think about, who use wich media,
> and why we make it.
>
> 1) As was said, ask server images users, how they prefer and how they
> actually install Fedora and make decision based on it.
>
> 2) Just
It sounds reasonable to take a while and think about, who use wich media,
and why we make it.
1) As was said, ask server images users, how they prefer and how they
actually install Fedora and make decision based on it.
2) Just a thought - would it be more efficient to test ISOs in VMs to some
poi
Hello all,
I would favour to make optical media issues blockers for beta so they'll
be (hopefully) solved by the time of the final release.
My 2 cents.
Sylvia
On 06/12/16 16:28, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
So, I wonder whether Fedora
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 09:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So an alternative to kparal's scheme would be to try and consider this,
> and say we test:
>
> * Workstation live
> * Everything netinst
> * Server DVD
Or we could simply state that required coverage is 'one release-
blocking live, one r
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:28 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > Idea #2: Do not block on optical media issues for Final release for
> > certain flavors/image types (Server, netinst)
> > ~
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
>
> > All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more
> > effectively. You can see the current coverage e.g. in this table [2],
> > overall we burn 6 DVDs and perform 1
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> So, I wonder whether Fedora as a project thinks about de-emphasizing
> optical media a bit, and if it does, I'd make appropriate changes
> even in our QA processes. Here are a couple of ideas that I consider
> could be likely to happen
W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
> All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more
> effectively. You can see the current coverage e.g. in this table [2],
> overall we burn 6 DVDs and perform 12 optical installation (BIOS +
> UEFI) for every release candidate publ
Now that Fedora 25 is out of the door, I'd like to start a discussion about the
future of officially-supported (meaning rigorously tested) optical media for
future Fedora releases. Since I'm QA, I'm mainly interested in changes to our
release criteria [1].
Let's start by saying I'm not asking f
75 matches
Mail list logo
