openstack

2014-07-21 Thread shailendra acharya
hello folks, i need help in installation of openstack in fedora20. plz suggest something for that. i will be greatfull of you -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Fedora 19 updates-testing report

2014-07-21 Thread updates
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 269 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-5896/nrpe-2.15-2.fc19 61 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-20

Fedora 20 updates-testing report

2014-07-21 Thread updates
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing: Age URL 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-5897/nrpe-2.15-2.fc20 61 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-6551/chicken-4.8.0.6-2.fc20 59 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-6615/dru

Re: DNF kernel-devel: The Final Frontier

2014-07-21 Thread Andre Robatino
This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997 which to be fixed is waiting on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906 and I don't know what the status is (I asked, no response). I was under the impression it was a simple change. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedora

DNF kernel-devel: The Final Frontier

2014-07-21 Thread poma
# yum install $(ls *3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64.rpm) ... --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved == PackageArch Version

Re: bug to which attached

2014-07-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 11:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > yeah, I'll ask. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121741 -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing lis

[Test-Announce] 2014-07-23 @ ** 16:00 UTC ** - F21 Blocker Review #3

2014-07-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
# F21 Blocker Review meeting #3 # Date: 2014-07-23 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net We've got another blocker meeting coming up this week. As of today there are 2 proposed blockers and 1 proposed FE for F21 Alpha (so it should be a sh

Re: bug to which attached

2014-07-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 11:44 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > Set the attachment type to text/plain . Bugzilla's auto-detection is > > terrible and always sets it to something silly which browsers don't want > > to open directly. I think

2014-07-23 @ ** 16:00 UTC ** - F21 Blocker Review #3

2014-07-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
# F21 Blocker Review meeting #3 # Date: 2014-07-23 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EST, 09:00 PST) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net We've got another blocker meeting coming up this week. As of today there are 2 proposed blockers and 1 proposed FE for F21 Alpha (so it should be a sh

[Test-Announce] CANCELLED: 2014-07-21 Fedora QA Meeting

2014-07-21 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi folks! Meant to send this out last night, but forgot :( I'm not sure there's anything specific to discuss at the meeting today, so let's cancel it. Obviously F21 testing is a bit behind, but it's not blocking on anything we can control, I don't think, and we can talk about the blocker bugs at t

Re: bug to which attached

2014-07-21 Thread Chris Murphy
On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Set the attachment type to text/plain . Bugzilla's auto-detection is > terrible and always sets it to something silly which browsers don't want > to open directly. I think I've seen this on other Bugzillas, though? I > don't think it's un

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 21.07.2014 17:13, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 17:11:51 +0200, poma wrote: On 21.07.2014 14:03, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:27:35 +0200, poma wrote: Withd thisd breakaged ofd d logind byd d glibcd, d Rawhided i686d isd d literallyd busted!

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 17:11:51 +0200, poma wrote: On 21.07.2014 14:03, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:27:35 +0200, poma wrote: Withd thisd breakaged ofd d logind byd d glibcd, d Rawhided i686d isd d literallyd busted! We'll fresh installs and live images are not re

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 21.07.2014 14:03, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:27:35 +0200, poma wrote: Withd thisd breakaged ofd d logind byd d glibcd, d Rawhided i686d isd d literallyd busted! We'll fresh installs and live images are not really usable. If you already have rawhide installed and

Re: rawhide report: 20140721 changes

2014-07-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:36:47 +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: This is pretty minor, but for some reason the devel list copy of the rawhide report arrives significantly after (over an hour later) the test list copy. This didn't used to happen. The branched reports both arrive around th

Re: Proposed generic release criterion: service manipulation

2014-07-21 Thread Mike Ruckman
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:43:41 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > We have a criterion covering reboot functionality already: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria#Desktop_shutdown.2C_reboot.2C_logout > > though I note there's a funny inconsistency - at Alpha we require >

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:27:35 +0200, poma wrote: Withd thisd breakaged ofd d logind byd d glibcd, d Rawhided i686d isd d literallyd busted! We'll fresh installs and live images are not really usable. If you already have rawhide installed and a root shell you can downgrade glibc. I do

F-21 Branched report: 20140721 changes

2014-07-21 Thread Fedora Branched Report
Compose started at Mon Jul 21 07:15:02 UTC 2014 Broken deps for armhfp -- [APLpy] APLpy-0.9.8-5.fc21.noarch requires pywcs [PyKDE] PyKDE-3.16.6-14.fc20.armv7hl requires sip-api(10) >= 0:10.0 [audtty] audtty-0.1.12-9.fc

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 21.07.2014 11:22, poma wrote: On 21.07.2014 10:44, poma wrote: On 17.07.2014 06:18, Bruno Wolff III wrote: After updating glibc this morning setuid stuff broken (openssh and cron were affected). Downgrading made it work again. I might have needed to reboot (though that would be unusual), but

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 21.07.2014 10:44, poma wrote: On 17.07.2014 06:18, Bruno Wolff III wrote: After updating glibc this morning setuid stuff broken (openssh and cron were affected). Downgrading made it work again. I might have needed to reboot (though that would be unusual), but I didn't want to risk it as I am

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 17.07.2014 14:11, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:59:45 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: $ fedpkg switch-branch f21 Could not execute switch_branch: len([]) != len(['PRIV_END: seteuid: Function not implemented', '', '', 'and the repository exists.']) ERROR:rpkg:Could not e

Re: Is anyone else seeing a problem with glibc 2.19.90-29.fc22 ?

2014-07-21 Thread poma
On 17.07.2014 06:18, Bruno Wolff III wrote: After updating glibc this morning setuid stuff broken (openssh and cron were affected). Downgrading made it work again. I might have needed to reboot (though that would be unusual), but I didn't want to risk it as I am testing some other stuff and didn'