The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
119
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19
63
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-23592/rubygem-actionpack-3.2.13-3.fc19
55
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2014-02-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! .next efforts are ramping up again,
with the WGs starting to talk
==
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting
==
Meeting started by adamw at 16:00:25 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-02-17/fedora-qa.2014-02-17-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:56:41 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think just chewing the cud about this on test@ is kind of pointless
> at this point; we're all aware of the issues and the general goal of
> 'make it simpler'. I think we need to be talking to other teams about
> it. See the message I
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:47:45 -0700
Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Mike Ruckman
> wrote:
> >
> > The hard part, IMO, is figuring out what 'common configurations'
> > should be included with the installer.
>
> I think the hard part is having the guts to make a subjective,
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 09:36 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:38:44 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 09:47 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 10:44 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm +1 in general and +1 fo
On 02/21/2014 10:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 06:01 -0700, Lawrence E Graves wrote:
Problems with the installation of the update-testing apcupsd 3.14.11-1.
This is the log of that installation.
Er, nope, that was your apcupsd config file. :P
Sorry correct, that was my c
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:47 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> What is in common for Server and Workstation? They have to boot, and
> startup to a working prompt or gdm. That's all the installer needs to
> do to be successful. Goose. Gander. Good.
> I think we shoot ourselves in both feet by creating d
On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
>
> The hard part, IMO, is figuring out what 'common configurations'
> should be included with the installer.
I think the hard part is having the guts to make a subjective, yet reasonably
well informed decision, and just stick to it. Harder for
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:59:54 -0700
Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 16:55 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> If the bar is going to be raised,
> >
> > Just as a sidebar, I'm not sure you're entirely on track with this
On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 10:54 -0600, Dan Mossor wrote:
>
>> I've been pondering this, and I have an idea that I borrowed from the
>> enemy (M$). When you install anything in Windows land - including the
>> OS, IIRC - you are given a choice:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 10:54 -0600, Dan Mossor wrote:
> I've been pondering this, and I have an idea that I borrowed from the
> enemy (M$). When you install anything in Windows land - including the
> OS, IIRC - you are given a choice: default install, or custom.
>
> Why can't we set anaconda up
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 06:01 -0700, Lawrence E Graves wrote:
> Problems with the installation of the update-testing apcupsd 3.14.11-1.
> This is the log of that installation.
Er, nope, that was your apcupsd config file. :P
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:00 -0600, Dan Mossor wrote:
>
> On 02/19/2014 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > There's some significant stuff in this week's FESCo minutes, so I
> > thought it wouldn't hurt to forward it to make people aware. Among the
> > key bits:
> >
> >
> > "AGREED: Open up F21 fo
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:25 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 08:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > "AGREED: the new mattdm's proposal for EOL bug procedure is approved" -
> > this ishttps://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 , the "new proposal"
> > that was approved is
> > htt
On 02/21/2014 05:43 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
On February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM EET, Alexander Todorov
wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled
On 02/21/2014 10:19 AM, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 02/20/2014 07:42 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
A few days ago I installed Rawhide from my local rsync.
The Asmedia USB ports now work. The Display would
not go above 1600 with the Nvidia gtx670 and Dell 30 incher.
The rpmfusion xorg-x11-drv-nv
On 02/19/2014 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
There's some significant stuff in this week's FESCo minutes, so I
thought it wouldn't hurt to forward it to make people aware. Among the
key bits:
"AGREED: Open up F21 for ordinary Change proposals _now_, and
continue the conversation about
On 02/19/2014 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 16:55 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
If the bar is going to be raised,
Just as a sidebar, I'm not sure you're entirely on track with this
assessment - I haven't quite read t
On February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM EET, Alexander Todorov
wrote:
>На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
>> Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
>> tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled
>in
>> the Fedora package?
>
>Hi Richard,
>
On 02/20/2014 07:42 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
A few days ago I installed Rawhide from my local rsync.
The Asmedia USB ports now work. The Display would
not go above 1600 with the Nvidia gtx670 and Dell 30 incher.
The rpmfusion xorg-x11-drv-nvidia did install and all was well.
... until
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests ex
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be i
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different loca
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа:
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test
suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then
the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora.
Same reason you file kernel bugs in Bugzilla.redhat
- Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Todorov"
> To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
> ,
> "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> Cc: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM
> Subjec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> >I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
> >to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
> >participants or whoever is willing to step up
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
> little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
> upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstre
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to
> focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or
> whoever is willing to step up to this task).
In that case, I suggest simply k
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but this
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test su
On 02/19/2014 08:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
"AGREED: the new mattdm's proposal for EOL bug procedure is approved" -
this ishttps://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 , the "new proposal"
that was approved is
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198#comment:67 . It's not a huge
change from
Problems with the installation of the update-testing apcupsd 3.14.11-1.
This is the log of that installation.
--
All things are workable but don't all things work.
Prov. 3:5 & 6
## apcupsd.conf v1.1 ##
#
# for apcupsd release 3.14.11 (31 January 2014) - redhat
#
# "apcupsd" POSIX config file
33 matches
Mail list logo