I regret to inform you all that I borked my beloved beautiful install of
Rawhide. All is not lost though,
as I had planned to eventually do a new install eventually.
I have Fedora 33 on my secondary NVMe and I am in it now.
I had better sense than to reboot, but I had lost my internet connec
On 3/15/21 10:16 PM, David wrote:
I seem to have lots of duplicate packages with the same name: one
being F34 and the other F35.
Then something went very wrong earlier. Did you have an update crash at
some point?
___
test mailing list -- test@lis
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 11:16 PM David wrote:
> I seem to have lots of duplicate packages with the same name: one being
> F34 and the other F35.
>
autoremove and offline-distrosync will fix it.
> cat says I am on version 34,
>
> I want to get rid of any unnecessary 34 stuff and proceed to F35
On 16/03/2021 13:16, David wrote:
I seem to have lots of duplicate packages with the same name: one being F34
and the other F35.
dnf [options] remove --duplicates
Removes older versions of duplicate packages. To ensure the in‐
tegrity of the system it rei
I seem to have lots of duplicate packages with the same name: one being
F34 and the other F35.
cat says I am on version 34,
I want to get rid of any unnecessary 34 stuff and proceed to F35.
To scare to reboot at this stage.
___
test mailing list -- t
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:55 PM David wrote:
>
> Mr. Murphy,
>
> I got the F35 key installed.
Yeah looks like its moved to:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/blob/rawhide/f/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary
>But somehow using that distrosync thing,
> I think I have a bunch of F33 pa
Mr. Murphy,
I got the F35 key installed. But somehow using that distrosync thing,
I think I have a bunch of F33 packages.
Also, somehow I need to disable the F34 stuff. I haven't figured that
out yet.
I think my first problem was that I was trying to import the key using sudo
and not a
Thank you Mr. Murphy.
rpm would not install the F35 key as you suggested.
so dnf would not offer the system-plugin-upgrade,
nor offline distrosync, etc.
I will keep tinkering with it.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscrib
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:29 PM David wrote:
>
> Continued from previous post...
>
> The update gave me a readout of about a hundred-plus messages all appearing
> to be the same problem related to the F35 gpg key.
>
> For example:
>
> Public key for
> kernel-5.12.0-0.rc2.20210309git144c7
Continued from previous post...
The update gave me a readout of about a hundred-plus messages all appearing
to be the same problem related to the F35 gpg key.
For example:
Public key for
kernel-5.12.0-0.rc2.20210309git144c79ef3353.166.fc35.x86_64.rpm is not
installed.
Failin
I have been away from my computer for unexpected circumstances
since about mid-November.I have several Linux distros each on their
own SSD, installed on a desktop computer,
but my primary NVMe has Rawhide.
I had access to my computer today ( briefly ), so decided to run an update
on a very sl
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/37 (x86_64)
ID: 815949 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/815949
ID: 815962 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.f
Hello,
I'm excited to help with Fedora QA. While I'm not able to contribute on
the development side, testing is something I'm capable of. :-)
My IRC nick is 'u9000[m]1', and my other contact information is bellow
my signature. Email is the best way to contact me individually.
--
u9000 (Nine)
Th
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210314.0):
ID: 815553 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/815553
ID: 815562 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd
On Mon, 2021-03-15 at 09:35 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 3/14/21 10:13 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go
> > meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release
> > Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements ->
On 3/15/21 11:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:13:45AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go
meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release
Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements -> Expected
On 3/15/21 10:45, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:41 AM Brandon Nielsen wrote:
Can we also add a "and displayed without error" clause, or maybe
"completes with no visible error"? Something to explicitly capture the
"sad face" bug[0].
[0] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.c
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 8/187 (x86_64), 13/126 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210314.n.0):
ID: 815156 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/815156
ID: 815262 Test: aarch64 Serve
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 13/187 (x86_64), 25/126 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed i
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:13:45AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go
> meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release
> Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements -> Expected
> installed system boot behavior ->
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 7/15 (aarch64), 1/16 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210314.0):
ID: 815482 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/815482
On 3/15/21 9:45 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:41 AM Brandon Nielsen wrote:
Can we also add a "and displayed without error" clause, or maybe
"completes with no visible error"? Something to explicitly capture the
"sad face" bug[0].
[0] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.c
Fedora-Robotics-Live-x86_64-34-20210315.n.0.iso Fatal Error on startup.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:41 AM Brandon Nielsen wrote:
>
> Can we also add a "and displayed without error" clause, or maybe
> "completes with no visible error"? Something to explicitly capture the
> "sad face" bug[0].
>
> [0] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924908
I thought about
On 3/14/21 10:13 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go
meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release
Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements -> Expected
installed system boot behavior -> First boot utilities (appen
OLD: Fedora-34-20210314.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210315.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210314.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210315.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 40
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 119.43 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20210228.0):
ID: 814762 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/814762
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests complet
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210314.0):
ID: 814663 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210314.0):
ID: 814649 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
30 matches
Mail list logo
