Fedora 19 updates-testing report

2014-02-21 Thread updates
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

[Test-Announce] 2014-02-24 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
# 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

2014-02-17 - Fedora QA Meeting - notes

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
== #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 ---

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
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,

Re: Release criteria proposal: explicit requirements for keyboard layouts

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Re: Apcupsd/update-testing

2014-02-21 Thread Lawrence E Graves
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Chris Murphy
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:

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Apcupsd/update-testing

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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_

Re: [Fwd: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-19)]

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: [Fwd: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-19)]

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Ralf Corsepius
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

Re: Adventures with Rawhide

2014-02-21 Thread Dan Mossor
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

Re: [Fwd: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-19)]

2014-02-21 Thread Dan Mossor
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

Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-21 Thread Dan Mossor
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Nikos Roussos
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, >

Re: Adventures with Rawhide

2014-02-21 Thread Dan Mossor
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

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
- 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Clasen
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
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

Re: [Fwd: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-19)]

2014-02-21 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
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

Apcupsd/update-testing

2014-02-21 Thread Lawrence E Graves
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