On 06/11/2013 02:22 AM, Richard Vickery wrote:
Hi gang:
It may be my ignorance - I probably know this but am unaware of it at
the moment; since upgrading to tc2 (and perhaps tc1), I lost my sound.
Any hints on how to get it back?
Thanks,
Richard
Try running "pulseaudio -k && sleep 5 && pulsea
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 08:01 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:43:35 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
>
> > > Quite a lot of people have said they find the current layout a bit
> > > confusing, but then, we tried two other layouts before this one and
> > > people fou
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:43:35 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> > Quite a lot of people have said they find the current layout a bit
> > confusing, but then, we tried two other layouts before this one and
> > people found both of those confusing too. At this point we are running
> > out
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 19:22 -0700, Richard Vickery wrote:
> Hi gang:
>
> It may be my ignorance - I probably know this but am unaware of it at
> the moment; since upgrading to tc2 (and perhaps tc1), I lost my sound.
> Any hints on how to get it back?
the 'TC' numbers are only really relevant for
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> Resize and refitting another OS along with already installed one on the same
> hardware ( disks ) is not something I see as we should or could be
> "officially" supporting hence we should not be blocking our release for that.
Certa
On 06/10/2013 07:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 21:23 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
...I'm still filled with trepidation when the only choice
I appear to have is to click "Done" after selecting a disk
to install on. I'm not "Done" :-). I want to pick partitions
to install on, e
Hi gang:
It may be my ignorance - I probably know this but am unaware of it at
the moment; since upgrading to tc2 (and perhaps tc1), I lost my sound.
Any hints on how to get it back?
Thanks,
Richard
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 21:23 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> ...I'm still filled with trepidation when the only choice
> I appear to have is to click "Done" after selecting a disk
> to install on. I'm not "Done" :-). I want to pick partitions
> to install on, etc, but there is absolutely no indication
>
...I'm still filled with trepidation when the only choice
I appear to have is to click "Done" after selecting a disk
to install on. I'm not "Done" :-). I want to pick partitions
to install on, etc, but there is absolutely no indication
you will have that chance unless you actually work up the
nerve
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:59:51 -0700
Samuel Sieb wrote:
> Check the logs for selinux errors or boot with selinux in permissive
> mode. You may need to relabel the filesystem.
Good idea. I'll check that when I get back to work tomorrow.
I usually turn off selinux, but I don't think I did that yet.
On 06/10/2013 07:43 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
I had a working minimal install of f19.
I booted f18 on the same machine to get work done,
and in background installed a gazillion packages
while chrooted into the f19 partition.
Now when I try to boot f19, it tells me I have
an invalid password for ev
On 06/10/2013 12:43 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
Now when I try to boot f19, it tells me I have
an invalid password for every user I try to login
as :-(.
I tried chrooting in again and running passwd to
update the passwords, but it still says invalid.
Check the logs for selinux errors or boot with se
> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:10:19 +
> From: johan...@gmail.com
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: F19 Final criteria revamp
>
> On 06/10/2013 07:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Well, let me put it more baldly: up till now I can't recall a
I had a working minimal install of f19.
I booted f18 on the same machine to get work done,
and in background installed a gazillion packages
while chrooted into the f19 partition.
Now when I try to boot f19, it tells me I have
an invalid password for every user I try to login
as :-(.
I tried chro
On 2013-06-10 18:16 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
Primary as in we should test this but not block the release for it not
working
The dangerous "not working" mode is screwing up the target so what was
functional there is no longer. Do you remember as well as I Disk Druid's
capacity
On 06/10/2013 07:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, let me put it more baldly: up till now I can't recall a single
person agreeing with you that we should stop blocking on basic
multiboot-alongside-a-simple-Windows-install. Not a single person. I
agree we have a very small sample size on this li
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 17:33 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/10/2013 04:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> >> We should just drop that entirely.
> >>
> >> Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS
On 06/10/2013 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
still needs improving? Thanks. In particular, what's the default
'multi-partition' layout of Win7/8? I don't think I've seen a stock
install of either (I still use an old copy of XP for Windows testing,
here.)
I recently had the "fun" of installing
On 06/10/2013 06:09 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 17:51 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only mat
On 2013-06-10 17:51 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only matters that it works for those who use it as a
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only matters that it works for those who use it as a sole OS.
Yes that our primary focus should be the only OS
On 06/10/2013 08:37 AM, Joerg Lechner wrote:
> I have now disabled, all what there is to disable (including parallel and
> serial port, second and third boot device), enabled USB, PS2, first boot
> device - cdrom, network etc.. This bootloader process took now approximately
> 1 minute.
> What
On 06/10/2013 04:48 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Johann. DROP IT. Seriously. You are picking a fight just for the sake
of a fight. I am sick and tired of you doing this every couple of
months. If you can not express yourself in a better less "You are an
idiot because you disagree with me
On 06/10/2013 04:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter ) nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
them
On 2013-06-10 15:58 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
On 06/10/2013 03:46 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is w
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> We should just drop that entirely.
>
> Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
> matter ) nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
> them to obtain it legally or illegally jus
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Could you take a look and see if it's better now, or
> > still needs improving?
>
> Criterion reads: The installer must be able to install into free space
> alongside an existing clean
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 18:04 +0200, Louis Lagendijk wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 10:39 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > I disabled NetworkManager, I enabled network, I copied in all my
> > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* files, but I don't get
> > any networking on my fedora 19 install.
> >
>
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 15:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> And what I'm saying we should not blocking the release for that.
>
> We are first and foremost shipping our distribution to be used as
> primary OS on our users HW just like any other OS does.
>
NO, you have not valid reasons t
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 10:39 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> I disabled NetworkManager, I enabled network, I copied in all my
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* files, but I don't get
> any networking on my fedora 19 install.
>
> I've got this box connected to a dd-wrt router doing
> tagged packe
On 06/10/2013 03:46 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is why you are multi booting them?
No.
I really don't understand the
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 11:05 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> It absolutely should block the release as there's no way to fix it after the
> fact. Dropping the requirement for sane multiboot behavior isn't a good idea.
> (Sane being, it's possible and does no harm to the existing system.)
>
+1
Cristi
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is why you are multi booting them?
No.
I really don't understand the question or why you are asking it.
and wh
Cristian Sava wrote:
>>After all, why to get rid of this way of dual boot capability for non
UEFI systems, for non encrypted dual boot? What is the big advantage to not
have that?<<
Because anaconda devs don't want to support what grub devs recommend against. I
think the former is reasonable. So
It absolutely should block the release as there's no way to fix it after the
fact. Dropping the requirement for sane multiboot behavior isn't a good idea.
(Sane being, it's possible and does no harm to the existing system.)
Chris Murphy
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsu
I'm using F19 beta Live media on VBox on OS X.
Chris Murphy
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On 06/10/2013 02:38 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 12:04 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While "dual" booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because virtuali
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:46:21 +0300
Cristian Sava wrote:
> Sometime back I had a similar problem and I discovered that my old grub
> install (other partition) was used. Do you mind to check?
I don't have an actual problem. It is definitely using the
new install to boot from because it offers the n
> I just installed f19 beta, picking "minimal install", which
> does not install X - I just get a console login.
>
> The apostrophe-like thing in Schrödinger's cat (which
> prints in the login prompt) shows up as a white block
> (I do get the 'o' with the two little dots above it though).
>
> I a
Yes. The code in the MBR jumps to a specific LBA in the MBR gap where core.img
is installed. Once that's loaded, grub understands the /boot filesystem, and
can locate and load normal.mod, grub.cfg, and the modules the grub.cfg
specifies for loading.
The prefix for where core.img looks is baked
Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
> Running on what OS? In on Mac OS, maybe this is part of the problem. Can
you post your vbox.log for successful
> bout to that forum thread?
My host is F18 x86_64. Noticed that you're running F19 so I can't vouch for
that. Attached my VBox.log to
https://
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 10:25 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> I just installed f19 beta, and it overwrote my MBR with
> grub2ness (as expected).
>
> But now I'm wondering - the actual installation of
> f19 is entirely on /dev/sda2 (including the /boot
> directory which is just a subdirectory of /, not
>
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
54
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-5801/mantis-1.2.15-1.fc19
27
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-8116/clamav-0.97.8-1.fc19
16
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-9102/
On 2013-06-10 12:04 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While "dual" booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because virtualization exists. Virtually all my 30+ usable s
I just installed f19 beta, and it overwrote my MBR with
grub2ness (as expected).
But now I'm wondering - the actual installation of
f19 is entirely on /dev/sda2 (including the /boot
directory which is just a subdirectory of /, not
a separate partition).
My old f18 /dev/sda3 partition is the only
On 06/09/2013 10:50 PM, Joerg Lechner wrote:
> I have made a new installation via "Final TC2 DVD iso" (4.2GB). First checked
> my BIOS settings. Found "Boot Up Floppy Seek" enabled, but I also don't have
> a Floppy. Setting to "disabled" shows now the time for "bootloader
> installieren" (German
Running on what OS? In on Mac OS, maybe this is part of the problem. Can you
post your vbox.log for successful bout to that forum thread?
Chris Murphy
(Sorry for top post, stupid Android mail client seems to have to other option.)
Andre Robatino wrote:
>Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Could you take a look and see if it's better now, or
> > still needs improving?
>
> Criterion reads: The installer must be able to install into free space
> alongside an existing clea
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:55:54PM -0300, "Germán A. Racca" wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 01:56 PM, Alexander Volovics wrote:
> >I wanted to test gnome-boxes on a fully updated fed19 beta.
> > Both Win7 and Win8 install without problems but I am unable
> > to enable 16:9 fullscreen (or any 16:9 screen)
Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
> > add inst.usefbx and video=efifb to the linuxefi kernel line in grub2
>
> This doesn't work for me.
I just tried it with Fedora-19-TC2-x86_64-DVD.iso in Oracle VirtualBox
4.2.12 and it worked for me.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.o
Compose started at Mon Jun 10 09:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc
On 06/10/2013 12:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:46 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
>We should just drop that entirely.
That's unrealistic.
There is nothing unrealistic removing it from the criteria but still
retain the test case(s) like we do for other things that peo
On Jun 10, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742695#c13
>
>
> add inst.usefbx and video=efifb to the linuxefi kernel line in grub2
This doesn't work for me.
Chris Murphy
--
tes
On Jun 10, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742695#c13
add inst.usefbx and video=efifb to the linuxefi kernel line in grub2
So in the case of baremetal EFI, X detects something adequately enough that it
works. But somehow on vbox it isn't.
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:46 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> We should just drop that entirely.
That's unrealistic.
> Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that matter )
> nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from them to
> obtain it legally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742695#c13
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Could you take a look and see if it's better now, or
> still needs improving?
Criterion reads: The installer must be able to install into free space
alongside an existing clean Windows installation and install a bootloader which
can boot in
Compose started at Mon Jun 10 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bind10]
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.i686 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.x86_64 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5()(64bit)
bind10-dhcp-
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While "dual" booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because virtualization exists. Virtually all my 30+ usable systems are
multiboot, regardless whether their hardware su
On 2013-06-10 10:49 (GMT) "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" composed:
Quite frankly dual booting is a thing of the past and it should be
dropped from the criteria.
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While "dual" booting is indeed a
thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just because v
I just installed f19 beta, picking "minimal install", which
does not install X - I just get a console login.
The apostrophe-like thing in Schrödinger's cat (which
prints in the login prompt) shows up as a white block
(I do get the 'o' with the two little dots above it though).
I also copied some
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:55:49 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The way to achieve this, though, is to file a
> bug report. Could you do that? Thanks.
Done:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972670
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraprojec
On 06/10/2013 10:08 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter )
They don't depend on Windows, they depend on our tools that detect Windows.
nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it fr
Hi!
I've installed TC2 and everything seems to run fine so far. I am however
running into an issue I had randomly under F18 (when the mouse was new)
where the (left) clicking seems to lock the mouse into the application
into which it clicks. The issue seems to be more systematic now but
maybe it's
> We should just drop that entirely.
>
> Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
> matter )
They don't depend on Windows, they depend on our tools that detect Windows.
> nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
> them to obtain it legally or i
On 06/10/2013 07:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 23:34 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
* We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I figured it would ma
# F19 Final Blocker Review meeting #4
# Date: 2013-06-10
# Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
We're cancelling the QA meeting for 2013-06-10, but we should still get
together and do some blocker review at 16:00 - we have all the blockers
a
It's been a while, but it looks like we can skip the QA meeting this
week: I'm not aware of any topics that particularly need discussion
outside of 19 Final work, and I don't see that anyone else has proposed
any. Note that we will still aim to do a blocker review meeting at 16:00
- I'll send out a
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 23:34 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >
> > * We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
> > boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I figured it would make
> > sense to break out an exp
69 matches
Mail list logo
