Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> > Adam, any idea whether this is a good idea or not? On one hand we want
> > people to say "hey, I install this update and my machine still boots"
> > because that's at least (slightly) informative. But I wonder how many
> > testers we lose by the tedium o
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mailman-2.1.12-16.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mantis-1.1.8-4.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bzip2-1.0.6-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seamo
The following Fedora 12 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openldap-2.4.19-6.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sudo-1.7.4p4-2.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gif2png-2.5.1-1202.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
At the Fedora 14 Beta Go/No-Go meeting today, the Fedora 14 Beta was
declared GOLD and ready for release on September 28, 2010.
Thank you to everyone who made this on-time release possible!
===
#fedora-meeting: Fedora 14 Beta Go/N
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 11:59 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Join us on irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting for this important meeting.
>
> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 @ 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT/14:00 PDT)
I will be at the meeting, but may be a bit delayed depending on traffic.
* AdamW has posted
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:04:23 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>> Care to join us? We don't bite :)
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester
>>
> Actually, I have provided karma on other packages with the
> fedora-easy-karma program and will do so for mdadm. Thanks for the
> clarification.
The
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
Still broken compared with F-14 Branched:
15 builds
Fixed packages compared with F-14 Branched:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:43:49PM +, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org
> /updates/mailman-2.1.13-6.fc14https://admin.fedoraproject.org
> /updates/cabextract-1.3-1.fc14,libmspack-0.2-0.1.2010072
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
/updates/mailman-2.1.13-6.fc14https://admin.fedoraproject.org
/updates/cabextract-1.3-1.fc14,libmspack-0.2-0.1.20100723alpha.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
/updates/exim-4.72-2.fc14https://
Happy to report that the KDE desktop passes validation for Fedora 14
Beta RC3. jreznik has a problem with sound on his tests but we're fairly
sure that's specific to his machine; other than that, all Alpha and Beta
tests pass. Thank you KDE team!
With this, all desktops pass (or provisionally pass
On 09/22/2010 04:27 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Hi Clyde,
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:16:23 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>
>>>
>> I am not a proven packager, but I have been using F13 since the update
>> and have raid 10 in extensive use and have not had any problems.
>
> You don't need to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:41:50PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Fedora Koji Build System
> wrote:
> > Package: Miro
> > NVR: Miro-3.0.3-2.fc13
> > User: bodhi
> > Status: failed
> > Tag Operation: untagged
> > From Tag: dist-f13-updates-testing-pending
>
Compose started at Wed Sep 22 13:15:39 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
RackTables-0.18.3-1.fc14.noarch requires /usr/local/bin/php
RackTables-0.18.3-1.fc14.noarch requires perl(File::FnMatch)
1:anjuta-2.30.0.0-2.fc1
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 16:54 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> sudo egrep 'pidgin|libpurple' /var/log/yum.log
> Aug 07 09:41:32 Installed: pidgin-2.7.2-1.fc14.i686
> Aug 13 07:14:40 Updated: libpurple-2.7.3-1.fc14.i686
> Aug 13 07:15:05 Updated: pidgin-2.7.3-1.fc14.i686
> Sep 22 16:22:00 Installed: li
On 09/22/2010 04:48 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 16:38:41 +0200,
> Joachim Backes wrote:
>> I runned because of curiosity reasons the command
>>
>> yum distro-sync,
>>
>> and this command downgraded the installed pidgin.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 and
>> libpurple.i686 0:2.7.3-1.
On 09/22/2010 04:43 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 16:38 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
>> I runned because of curiosity reasons the command
>>
>> yum distro-sync,
>>
>> and this command downgraded the installed pidgin.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 and
>> libpurple.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 to
>> pid
Harald Hoyer (har...@redhat.com) said:
> > In fact, I'm strongly debating flipping it so systemd is mandatory; it
> > enables us to actually merge the changes that allow for cleaner
> > startup/shutdown (moving parts of rc.sysinit, etc. to systemd units.)
>
> Does that mean, I can commit my rc.sy
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 16:38:41 +0200,
Joachim Backes wrote:
> I runned because of curiosity reasons the command
>
> yum distro-sync,
>
> and this command downgraded the installed pidgin.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 and
> libpurple.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 to
> pidgin.i686 0:2.7.2-1.fc14 and libpurple.i68
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 16:38 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> I runned because of curiosity reasons the command
>
> yum distro-sync,
>
> and this command downgraded the installed pidgin.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 and
> libpurple.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 to
> pidgin.i686 0:2.7.2-1.fc14 and libpurple.i686 0:2.7.
I runned because of curiosity reasons the command
yum distro-sync,
and this command downgraded the installed pidgin.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 and
libpurple.i686 0:2.7.3-1.fc14 to
pidgin.i686 0:2.7.2-1.fc14 and libpurple.i686 0:2.7.2-1.fc14.
What could be the reason for this?
Kind regards
--
Joachi
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:26 -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
> 32 bit version, downloaded yesterday.
>
> J. H. Dulaney
I got the x86-64 image, but I haven't heard anyone else having trouble
with 32-bit. I'll try that image later if I have time.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw
32 bit version, downloaded yesterday.
J. H. Dulaney
> Subject: Re: F14B RC3 Boot Failure
> From: awill...@redhat.com
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:00:07 +0100
>
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 23:24 -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
> > List:
> > I attempted to boot from the L
Compose started at Wed Sep 22 08:15:25 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
almanah-0.7.3-3.fc14.x86_64 requires libedataserverui-1.2.so.10()(64bit)
antlr3-python-3.1.2-7.fc14.noarch requires python(abi) = 0:2.6
claws-ma
On my box cgroup.h warning disappeared, but
kernel/sched.c:617 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection
appeared again.
Regards,
Michal
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Jeff Raber wrote:
>>
>> Bug 622149 looks suspciously like a duplicate of
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610967 but it is not
>> marked as such. There is also
>
> I just closed bugs 610967 & 626026 as dups of 622149 which is
> blocking F14Target[1].
>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.c
2010/9/22 Harald Hoyer :
> On 09/15/2010 10:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
Will there be the same reversion in rawhide too?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> In fact, I'm strongly debating flipping it so systemd is mandatory; it
>> enables us to actually merge the changes t
On 09/15/2010 10:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
>>> Will there be the same reversion in rawhide too?
>>
>> No.
>
> In fact, I'm strongly debating flipping it so systemd is mandatory; it
> enables us to actually merge the changes that allow for cleaner
> startup/
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:54 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> I use VirtualBox since years, and there has been no reason for me to
> switch to another virtualization method (I think, others think so too).
> But if there is a tutorial for the usage of Virtual Machine Manager and
> if it's possible to
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> > I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
> > using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
> > look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
>
>
> Using top I found it is Xo
#131: proven tester mentor request: slankes
-+--
Reporter: slankes | Owner:
Type: proventester request | Status: new
Priority: major| Milestone:
Guys,
On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> People,
>>
>>
>> On 2010-09-22 09:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the validation
>>> testing for Beta, with a clean slate except
On 09/22/2010 11:33 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim michelsylvain.info> writes:
>
>> I tend to run both VBox and KVM, depending on what the situation
>> requires. KVM tends to be much better at running BSD guests, for
>> instance. I've never really used VBox-OSE though -- the
Michel Alexandre Salim michelsylvain.info> writes:
> I tend to run both VBox and KVM, depending on what the situation
> requires. KVM tends to be much better at running BSD guests, for
> instance. I've never really used VBox-OSE though -- the VBox build from
> upstream, which has the proprieta
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:51:48 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 01:27 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> the names
>> are unfortunately rather similar
>
> They were chosen to be similar :)
>
Bad wording on my part. In most cases that's intended, but in this
particular case it does evi
Joachim Backes rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:
> Hi Andre,
>
> if you mean: VirtualBox-OSE, ok. But, *as workaround*, I was successful
> in downloading the Fedora 13 version of VirtualBox rpm from
> virtualbox.org and installing this rpm (using --nodeps because of some
> dependency problems). It runs,
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:31:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> I'm a bit curios on why so many of you choose to use VirtualBox instead
> of the Virtual Machine Manager.
>
> Do you think that Virtual Machine Manager is to hard and to complicated
> to use?
>
> Are there any specific features
On 09/22/2010 10:53 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 09/22/2010 08:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:21 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
>>>
It seems it would be better to open a Rpmfusion BZ
>>> Right. This isn't a Fedora pa
On 09/22/2010 10:31 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 08:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:21 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
>>
>>> It seems it would be better to open a Rpmfusion BZ
>> Right. This isn't a Fedora package.
>>
>> (The problem is that it hasn't
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson gmail.com> writes:
> On 09/22/2010 08:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:21 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> >
> >> It seems it would be better to open a Rpmfusion BZ
> > Right. This isn't a Fedora package.
> >
> > (The problem is that it hasn't been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/2010 01:27 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> the names
> are unfortunately rather similar
They were chosen to be similar :)
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:30 +, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:16:56 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:50 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >> threshold after which we could assume that the packager *and* testers
> >> know what they're doing,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:16:56 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:50 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> threshold after which we could assume that the packager *and* testers
>> know what they're doing, and approve the update without testing the
>> affected functionality?
>
On 09/22/2010 08:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:21 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
>
>> It seems it would be better to open a Rpmfusion BZ
> Right. This isn't a Fedora package.
>
> (The problem is that it hasn't been rebuilt against Python 2.7, BTW. I
> imagine there's some
Hi Clyde,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:16:23 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>>
> I am not a proven packager, but I have been using F13 since the update
> and have raid 10 in extensive use and have not had any problems.
You don't need to be a proven packager, just a proven tester; the names
are unfortu
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:21 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> It seems it would be better to open a Rpmfusion BZ
Right. This isn't a Fedora package.
(The problem is that it hasn't been rebuilt against Python 2.7, BTW. I
imagine there's some kind of problem with this, or it would probably
have happe
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:21:34 +0200
Joachim Backes wrote:
[snip]
> Error: Package: VirtualBox-OSE-3.2.6-2.fc14.i686
> (rpmfusion-free-rawhide) Requires: libpython2.6.so.1.0
> You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
> You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
> --
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 23:24 -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
> List:
> I attempted to boot from the LiveCD, and on every box I've tried, I've
> received the same error, RHB #636380. I've burned the ISO twice, and
> have checked the checksum, so I do not believe that the problem is a
> download/burn erro
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> People,
>
>
> On 2010-09-22 09:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the validation
> > testing for Beta, with a clean slate except for
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636
On 09/22/2010 07:05 AM, Jose Medrano wrote:
> If you are not using a kernel PAE you can try with akmod... akmod
> recompiles the module every time a new kernel its installed
> Saludos
> Atte.
> Jose A. Medrano
Jose,
1. Installing akmod-VirtualBox-OSE done; but then trying installation
of Virtu
49 matches
Mail list logo
