> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:50:04 AM
> Subject: Re: update some test cases
>
> On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 23:59 -0500, Lili Nie wrote:
> > Hi Adam,
> > Thanks a lot for your great advice and help
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> So, where would you say we are WRT the criteria for F22 right now?
> What would be a reasonable expectation?
>
> As of right now, we have these in the F22 Final criteria:
>
> Windows dual boot
>
> The installer must be able to install into
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:46:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Here's a ping on this (as I only got feedback from Mike before -
> anyone else?) and a modification: I'd like to extend the Beta
> criterion to read:
>
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
> the
On Sun, 2014-12-28 at 18:39 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Hi, folks. Talking to cmurf, our resident OS X dual boot expert,
> > on #fedora-qa, it's become clear that when we adopted the OS X
> > dual boot cr
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 23:59 -0500, Lili Nie wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> Thanks a lot for your great advice and help :)
No problem! I see you put the changes into place, I just went through
the tests and cleaned up a bit more - I created the new template I
suggested for the steps all the test cases s
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
109
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11969/krb5-1.11.5-16.fc20
62
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15371/rubygem-actionpack-4.0.0-5.fc20
60
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
62
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15342/rubygem-actionpack-4.1.5-2.fc21
61
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15413/rubygem-sprockets-2.12.1-3.fc21
39
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/u
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
>
> "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer
> images, the installer must be able to install each of the release
> blocking desktops, as well as the minimal pa
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 10:18 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 06:30, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately these updates don't fix Bug 1178978 - offline update
> > fails due
> > to separate /var volume mounting too late
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178978
On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 3:20:41 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> It would be great if folks could, as a matter of urgency, test this
> update:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/PackageKit-1.0.4-1.fc21,libhif-
> 0.1.8-1.fc21
>
> Please install the updated packages, reboot (or at least restart t
On 20 January 2015 at 06:30, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Unfortunately these updates don't fix Bug 1178978 - offline update fails due
> to separate /var volume mounting too late
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178978
Right. This isn't actually a PackageKit bug as you correctly deduced.
I
On 20 January 2015 at 09:50, Tim Waugh wrote:
> But: will all Fedora 21 users need to run 'pkcon repair' manually, or
> can that be made automatic?
It shouldn't be required, unless someone has rpmdb index corruption
and doesn't want to reboot.
Richard.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproj
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 12:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Please install the updated packages, reboot (or at least restart the
> packagekit service), run 'pkcon repair' as root, reboot again, and
> then test regular use of GNOME Software and pkcon as much as possible -
> try installing and remo
13 matches
Mail list logo
