[Test-Announce] 2013-12-23 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2013-12-23 # Time: 16:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! We have a meeting slot on 12-23 - it's two days before Christmas, but lots of keen cookies expressed

2013-12-16 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap

As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131216 Next meeting is scheduled for 2013-12-23 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. If you have topics you think we should bring up at the meeting, please add them to the Wiki page at https://fe

Fedora 19 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 62 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19262/quassel-0.9.1-1.fc19 55 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FED

Fedora 18 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing: Age URL 26 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-21875/389-ds-base-1.3.0.9-1.fc18 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22949/net-snmp-5.7.2-7.fc18 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2

Re: Recommended system requirements for f20 not sufficient?

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 04:34:43PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > During Alpha, that's normal, it's been that way for 2-3 releases. Modern > debug kernels are very slow and inefficient; installing with a debug > kernel seems to exhaust 1GB of RAM quite easily. That's a separate > issue, though, an

Re: Recommended system requirements for f20 not sufficient?

On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 01:10 +0100, Lars Seipel wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:03:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Well, I did some testing during F20 cycle which seems to indicate F20 > > Shell takes up a lot more memory than F19 when using llvmpipe. We're not > > sure exactly what's goi

Re: Recommended system requirements for f20 not sufficient?

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:03:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Well, I did some testing during F20 cycle which seems to indicate F20 > Shell takes up a lot more memory than F19 when using llvmpipe. We're not > sure exactly what's going on yet, It's not just Gnome Shell's fault I think. At leas

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 20/12/13 12:50, Gavin Flower wrote: On 20/12/13 12:51, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:44 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: Can there be anything more important than the correct way to make tea??? Sure - vim versus emacs! Possibly a close second... Then again, some people might c

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 20/12/13 12:51, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:44 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: Can there be anything more important than the correct way to make tea??? Sure - vim versus emacs! Possibly a close second... -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:44 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > Can there be anything more important than the correct way to make > tea??? Sure - vim versus emacs! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassass

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: > long time. It wasn't frozen. The update ran well last time. But I > probably would run it when I had to be away from it anyway. You see, > in America we have a saying: "A watched teapot never boils." > > It's an old English saying in fact :)

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

Can there be anything more important than the correct way to make tea??? On 20/12/13 12:39, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: Are you guys overtired or something? ;) Thanks, Phil On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 10:39

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 20/12/13 12:21, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 10:39 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: On 20/12/13 06:38, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: [...] long time. It wasn't frozen. The update ran well last time. But I probably would run it when I h

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

Are you guys overtired or something? ;) Thanks, Phil On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 10:39 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > > On 20/12/13 06:38, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: > > [...] > > > long

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 10:39 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 20/12/13 06:38, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: > [...] > > long time. It wasn't frozen. The update ran well last time. But I > > probably would run it when I had to be away from it anyway.

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 12/19/2013 04:39 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: On 20/12/13 06:38, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: [...] long time. It wasn't frozen. The update ran well last time. But I probably would run it when I had to be away from it anyway. You see, in America we ha

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:39:04 +1300 Gavin Flower wrote: eapot never boils." > > It's an old English saying in fact :) > Even an unwatched _*teapot*_ should not boil! > My Dad used boil it, crude oil yeuk! -- Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org T

Re: Sugar tweaked on desktop validation matrix

On 12/19/2013 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: Hi, folks. As satellit's been asking me to help him with for ages, I've changed the desktop validation matrix template page: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Desktop_validation_results_template&diff=365178&oldid=353762 to better ref

Re: Recommended system requirements for f20 not sufficient?

On 2013-12-19 15:26 (GMT-0600) Dan Mossor composed: When there is storage media besides RAM available, you can run F20 on as little as the 512MB that Ralf is using. Yesterday I did a HTTP F20 minimal install with .5G RAM and 1.13GHz Piii. The second GUI page was taking a long time to finish t

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 20/12/13 06:38, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: [...] long time. It wasn't frozen. The update ran well last time. But I probably would run it when I had to be away from it anyway. You see, in America we have a saying: "A watched teapot never boils."

Re: Recommended system requirements for f20 not sufficient?

On 12/18/2013 01:21 PM, Akshay Vyas wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/18/2013 08:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 15:03 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: Hi, i just booted the live iso in a VM with 1G of memory and after I start "Sof

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 13:39 -0500, Temlakos wrote: > On 12/19/2013 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: > > > > > The newest version of fedup available to me (not using > updates-testing) is 0.7. ne > > Is someone going to push

Re: xserver fails to resume from suspend (f20)

Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 07:09 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: > >> Remember I first saw this with nvidia blob - so it's not a nouveau issue. >> >> Here is another strange data point. >> >> It seems to happen 100% of the time when I close laptop and transport to/from >> work. B

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 12/19/2013 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: The newest version of fedup available to me (not using updates-testing) is 0.7. ne Is someone going to push fedup version 0,8 to updates (stable) soon? Do I wait for that? Or enable updates-testi

Re: xserver fails to resume from suspend (f20)

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 07:09 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: > Remember I first saw this with nvidia blob - so it's not a nouveau issue. > > Here is another strange data point. > > It seems to happen 100% of the time when I close laptop and transport to/from > work. But last night tested 3 times clos

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 05:08 -0500, Temlakos wrote: > > > The newest version of fedup available to me (not using > > > updates-testing) is 0.7. ne > > > > > > Is someone going to push fedup version 0,8 to updates (stable) soon? > > > Do I wait for that? Or enable updates-testing and run an update

Re: Proposed validation test case: root on LVM thinp

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 08:43 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > I wrote > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_anaconda_lvmthinp_rootfs , > > > and I propose we add it to the installation validation matrix for F21 > > > > I am concerned by this sentence: > > "Proceed with installation, leavi

Re: Proposed validation test case: root on LVM thinp

> > I wrote > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_anaconda_lvmthinp_rootfs , > > and I propose we add it to the installation validation matrix for F21 > > I am concerned by this sentence: > "Proceed with installation, leaving all other settings at default where > possible, using sensible

Re: Proposed validation test case: root on LVM thinp

> I wrote > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_anaconda_lvmthinp_rootfs , > and I propose we add it to the installation validation matrix for F21 I am concerned by this sentence: "Proceed with installation, leaving all other settings at default where possible, using sensible values for an

Re: xserver fails to resume from suspend (f20)

Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 20:18 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 11:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 07:33 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: >> >> > Neal Becker wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Just updated f19->f2

Re: Thoughts about Travis-CI integration

На 18.12.2013 20:09, Tim Flink написа: On a side note, it might be interesting to find out what percentage of packages are running things in %check. I don't know what we would do with that metric, but I think it would be interesting :) I have something in the works which can be modified to ext

Re: any report of fedup f19->f20?

On 12/18/2013 09:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 18:58 -0500, Temlakos wrote: On 12/18/2013 06:50 PM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: * I don't actually know one way or another but it feels like it might just be similar in my case since I've confirmed I'm

Re: Rawhide heads up - password auth for ssh and selinux

On 12/18/2013 07:59 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: It seems that selinux-policy-3.13.1-10.fc21 is blocking password authentication for sshd. Authorized_keys authentication still works. I use both together and got a surprise after doing an update and could access a system remotely. Using permissive