Re: test matrix question, EFI vs x86_64

2013-10-08 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 14:41 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > but in terms of the *general approach*, it is > > that the 'x86_64' column represents x86_64 BIOS, and UEFI represents > > x86_64 UEFI. > > OK good. Followup question: Is Mac EFI a sui

Re: First impression with f20-beta-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:33 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote: > On 10/08/2013 07:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote: >> >>> 64 bit netinstall with about 2700 packages successful on two machines. >> Are they UEFI? >> >>> Netinst UEFI boot cannot a

Re: First impression with f20-beta-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
On 10/08/2013 07:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote: 64 bit netinstall with about 2700 packages successful on two machines. Are they UEFI? Netinst UEFI boot cannot access hard drives. I don't know what that means. I just did an EFI netinstl a

Re: First impression with f20-beta-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread nonamedotc
On 10/08/2013 07:40 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote: Users and Groups does not work from Xfce, either from menu or program search. That's a known bug - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879922 Workaround is fairly simple. echo "StartupNotify=true" >> /usr/share/applications/syst

Re: First impression with f20-beta-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote: > 64 bit netinstall with about 2700 packages successful on two machines. Are they UEFI? > Netinst UEFI boot cannot access hard drives. I don't know what that means. I just did an EFI netinstl and it saw and installed to my hard drive j

First impression with f20-beta-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
64 bit netinstall with about 2700 packages successful on two machines. Netinst UEFI boot cannot access hard drives. Users and Groups does not work from Xfce, either from menu or program search. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX c...@omen.com www.omen.com Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Em

Re: 2013-10-07 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap

2013-10-08 Thread Tim Flink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:00:15 -0600 Tim Flink wrote: > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 22:28:51 +0200 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > * tflink and handsome_pirate to write up detailed proposals for > > projects to be worked on in a possible longer f21 schedule and > > post / link to them in the trac ticket >

Re: test matrix question, EFI vs x86_64

2013-10-08 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > but in terms of the *general approach*, it is > that the 'x86_64' column represents x86_64 BIOS, and UEFI represents > x86_64 UEFI. OK good. Followup question: Is Mac EFI a suitable substitute for UEFI? In a sense Mac EFI is more limited, so

Re: test matrix question, EFI vs x86_64

2013-10-08 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 13:43 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > If a test works for EFI, it seems like it also qualifies for x86_64. Maybe > the exception to this is for booting, where the x86_64 column indicates > x86_64+BIOS, and EFI indicates x86_64+EFI. Right? No, not really. Well. The intent is

[Test-Announce] 2013-10-09 @ 16:00 UTC - F20 Beta Blocker Bug Review #3

2013-10-08 Thread Tim Flink
# F20 Beta Blocker Review meeting #3 # Date: 2013-10-09 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Everyone's favorite weekly activity is almost upon us once again. We'll be holding another blocker review meeting tomorrow and while the list of b

test matrix question, EFI vs x86_64

2013-10-08 Thread Chris Murphy
If a test works for EFI, it seems like it also qualifies for x86_64. Maybe the exception to this is for booting, where the x86_64 column indicates x86_64+BIOS, and EFI indicates x86_64+EFI. Right? Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedo

Re: The bodhi nss bundle to rebase to nss-3.15.2 could use some karma

2013-10-08 Thread Michael Cronenworth
Elio Maldonado wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18382/nss-3.15.2-1.fc19,nss-util-3.15.2-1.fc19,nss-softokn-3.15.2-1.fc19,nspr-4.10.1-1.fc19 Thank you in advance, Thanks for sending out the email and fixing this problem. Karma left! Michael -- test mailing list test

The bodhi nss bundle to rebase to nss-3.15.2 could use some karma

2013-10-08 Thread Elio Maldonado
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18382/nss-3.15.2-1.fc19,nss-util-3.15.2-1.fc19,nss-softokn-3.15.2-1.fc19,nspr-4.10.1-1.fc19 Thank you in advance, Elio -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

First impression with f20-alpha-tc2

2013-10-08 Thread Joachim Backes
Dear testers, I still have the same problems with beta-tc2 as with beta-tc1: I installed f20-beta-tc2 (netinst.iso, with gnome as desktop) in VirtualBox! The installation is well performed, but no boot into gdm login (hangs in black screen). Workaround: Boot into runlevel 3, then say "init 5". T

Re: 2013-10-07 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap

2013-10-08 Thread Tim Flink
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 22:28:51 +0200 Adam Williamson wrote: > * tflink and handsome_pirate to write up detailed proposals for > projects to be worked on in a possible longer f21 schedule and post / > link to them in the trac ticket I'm still futzing with some details but I'm almost done with the

[Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 2 (TC2) Available Now!

2013-10-08 Thread Andre Robatino
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit Desktop Live, the 32-bit Security Spin, and the 64-bit LXDE and Security Spins are over their respective size targets. As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 2 (TC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including chang

F-20 Branched report: 20131008 changes

2013-10-08 Thread Fedora Branched Report
Compose started at Tue Oct 8 09:15:02 UTC 2013 Broken deps for armhfp -- [blueman] blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires obex-data-server >= 0:0.4.3 blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires gvfs-obexftp [bwm-ng] bwm-ng-0.6

Fedora 19 updates-testing report

2013-10-08 Thread updates
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 54 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-14814/python-glanceclient-0.9.0-3.fc19 19 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17121/vino-3.8.1-3.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA

Fedora 18 updates-testing report

2013-10-08 Thread updates
The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing: Age URL 171 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-6117/eucalyptus-3.2.2-1.fc18 19 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17112/hplip-3.13.9-2.fc18 17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-17

Stabilize anaconda development earlier in the cycle.

2013-10-08 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On 10/07/2013 08:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: * viking-ice suggested pushing to have anaconda development cycle adjusted to stabilize earlier in the cycle As I suggested on the meeting I have started that discussion with the Anaconda developers and the thread for that can be found here [¹]