The GTK instructions have always worked for me since after BTRFS became the
default. They're very detailed. I couldn't follow the WebUI instructions
without the help of the video because they don't have as much detail. I would
have had to use the GTK version of the installer (by removing the
an
Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> What worked (this feels equivalent to what you tried, I'm not sure what
> the difference is):
> 1. Select "Mount point assignment"
> 2. Select "root" as the device for the / mount point
> 3. Select "sda3" for /boot, check "Reformat"
> 4. Click "Add mount"
> 5. Enter "/home
I've been preserving /home using the instructions at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_partitioning_custom_btrfs_preserve_home
since btrfs became the default, so it ought to work.
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
OK, after watching the "Mount point assignment" video at
https://fedoramagazine.org/anaconda-installer-redesign/ I have a better idea of
what's going on. So here's what I think I'm supposed to do. I used "Add mount
point" to add a third row /home. After this, I have 3 mount points (/, /boot,
a
As stated above, my dual-boot machine is legacy BIOS with MBR partitioning, so
I can't simply choose "Reinstall Fedora" (which doesn't even appear when MBR
partitioning is present). I'm attempting to follow the instructions at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_partitioning_webui_guided_
Filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353002 against
anaconda-webui.
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedorapro
Pretty simple to reproduce. One of the machines was F41 only, the other was/is
dual boot Windows 10/F41. Both were/are legacy BIOS (I upgraded the firmware on
the Fedora-only machine to UEFI afterwards, not an option with the other). So
reproducing should just require reinstalling on top of an F
I tried using "Reinstall Fedora" (F41 -> F42 Beta) on 2 legacy BIOS machines,
using the GNOME Workstation Live, and got the above error with each. (On one of
them, which is Fedora only, and only a small amount of data in home, I worked
around it by using "Use entire disk".) I don't see anything
The wiki page above still says not to use WebUI, so needs to be updated for
F42. Yet strangely, automated tests for this in the Test Matrix are passing.
I'm not sure how or what they're testing. I haven't looked at the installer
recently, is it obvious now how to preserve /home?
--
Firefox recently removed Ogg video playback, only audio is left. (See
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c6e0319d22 ). Could someone
who is more familiar with this subject please edit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_firefox_media so the test is valid?
Thanks.
--
___
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271547 . Apparently other
applications will run automatically as a Startup Application (I tried
Aisleriot), but not gnome-terminal. Don't know if this violates any Final
criteria, posting here to get more attention since I wasn't even sure what
c
FWIW, I've occasionally seen this happen in F38, but not reproducibly.
___
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-US/p
What's going on with the 6.1 kernel for stable releases? Normally, there are
Koji builds even if it's not intended for stable releases yet, but the only
Koji build for the 6.1 kernel was for Rawhide. Is there an issue causing it to
be skipped?
___
test
So far, updates haven't fixed it, but I found that if I use the "enforcing=0"
boot option, the problems with both GNOME and the network are gone.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedor
After clean installing from the first branched Everything netinst, and updating
fedora-repos to 34-0.12 (to get the branched repos instead of rawhide), and
manually enabling the fedora repo and updating, my network doesn't work, and
GNOME doesn't start (something about dbus). By running dhclient
The update was obsoleted, but it looks like your fix worked on its replacement.
The new update https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-04374575bf
now shows "All required tests passed". Thanks!
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraprojec
For about the last 2 months, no F32 container-selinux update has been able to
go to stable. This is due to a single failed test which for some reason, only
applies to F32 but not F31. The latest update is
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-30e48495bf which is now
submitted for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609289 (dnf, Rawhide)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609292 (comps, Rawhide)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609294 (comps, F28)
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.or
Which component should a bug be filed against for the following Rawhide error?
[root@localhost ~]# dnf groupinstall basic-desktop-environment
Last metadata expiration check: 1:44:13 ago on Fri 27 Jul 2018 03:39:28 AM EDT.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 58, in
m
> accessing it). I don't suppose you kept a backup of the file? That
> would be very helpful for investigating the problem...
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590#c4 .
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
The package baloo-libs is no longer in the F26 repo. Removing it removes knode
and knode-libs as dependencies. Attempting to install them again gives
[root@localhost ~]# yum-deprecated --skip-broken install knode knode-libs
Yum command has been deprecated, use dnf instead.
See 'man dnf' and 'man
Correction, it should be "grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg" (not
grub.conf).
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
The F24 lives don't contain a rescue kernel or generate the corresponding
grub entry (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317709 ). Is
there a way to install the rescue kernel if it was not done during the
initial install? (The package dracut-config-rescue was not installed, and
I've i
> /etc/kernel/postinst.d/51-dracut-rescue-postinst.sh $(uname -r)
> /boot/vmlinuz-$(uname -r)
Thanks. I ran this command in F24 and it created the rescue mode files in
/boot. Looking at /boot/grub2/grub.conf indicated that the rescue mode grub
entry was the first on the list, so I ran "grub2-mkc
When I used this method to create new rescue mode files for my F23 box (which
already had a rescue mode entry), I got an additional rescue mode entry at the
top of the grub menu. This was fixed by manually editing /boot/grub2/grub.conf
to delete the new entry (as mentioned in
https://ask.fedora
I think you're looking at the wrong time period. libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 went to
stable on 2015-11-23 (see
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9199a1bfe1 ). At this time,
1.6.17-3 had already been pushed to testing and was just sitting there. Then it
was submitted for stable on 201
I don't see which of those apply for any of the three packages in the bug. Are
you sure you're not talking about the old bodhi?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sorry on the qemu front, but I was under the impression that bodhi handles
> obsoleting old updates when a new version is submitted. Am I wrong, or is
> something busted on the bodhi side?
See the bug. The downgrades happened when old updates were submitted for
stable, either by the packager su
The stable versions of qemu, libpng, and just now bzip2 have been downgraded
in F23 (although qemu has been fixed). See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292914 . It would be a good
idea for packagers to keep track of what the latest stable version of their
package is, and not submit old
Disregard my previous message regarding the TC2 link. Just realized that
since TC1 was never announced, it makes sense to link to the beginning of
the ticket.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Adam Williamson fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Content information, including changes, can be found at
> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6213 .
Link to TC2 is https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6213#comment:3 .
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https
Kalev Lember gmail.com> writes:
> 4) Run 'fedora-easy-karma' daily, and give -1 karma to updates that
> regress anything and +1 karma to those that don't
Chances are f-e-k won't work. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144587 and
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/778 . You'll h
Joachim Backes rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:
> as you can see in the subject, I'm running *F22/TC8 alpha* as host and
> *not F21* (in F21, the VM runs well), and I had no problems with the
> kernel of the F22/TC8 DVD.
Running VirtualBox on a host with a 4.0 kernel is expected to have problems,
see h
Matthias Clasen redhat.com> writes:
> Let me ask now, then: can we make the change to reject 'weak' passwords
> specific to only those products that enable sshd by default, please ?
If the only concern is remote attacks, I'd like to see someone answer the
earlier question about whether Fedora ha
Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
> If this is really an improvement in security, which it isn't because
> an 8 character "good" password still has very low entropy, then it
It depends - if the only concern is remote access, and there is a limit on
the number of login attempts (either by n
This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906 (originally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997 ). It partially works
now in Rawhide, except that it fails to remove the old version of
kernel-devel (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906#c18
which is stil
drago01 gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Brian C. Lane redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I *know* this is going to be a bit of a pain to get used to. But the
> > increased security is worth it.
>
> Depends ... if you force user to choose a password that they can't
> possibly rememb
Michael Schwendt gmail.com> writes:
> Have you tried
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16078
> ?
Thanks! It works for me and I no longer need splix. Added karma.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
Sérgio Basto serjux.com> writes:
> > Anyway, in F21 it was
> > necessary to install splix. Was the suppport for this printer moved from
> > foomatic to splix,
>
> No, without splix , we couldn't print on this kind of printers, I think.
The printer was working in F20, F19, and F18, and I didn't
I have a Samsung ML-1740 laser printer which in F20 and below would work
immediately after install, even though splix wasn't installed. I believe it
was necessary for foomatic to be installed, and in one previous release it
wasn't installed by default, but was supposed to be. Anyway, in F21 it was
Jonathan Calloway gmail.com> writes:
> Would you be willing to point me to the web interface? Are you referring
to the web interface for Bodhi?
Yes, I was just referring to logging into bodhi.fedoraproject.org with your
FAS account and giving karma one package at a time.
--
test mailing list
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:24 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and t
Jonathan Calloway gmail.com> writes:
> I was trying to contribute some karma for F20. However, it cannot seem to
contact Bodhi. Is it just me?
>
> [callowayj localhost ~]$ fedora-easy-karma
> Getting list of installed packages...
> Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in updates-testing (
Adam Williamson fedoraproject.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 13:09 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
> wrote:
> > I have an updated F-21 alpha that is working well. Is it any different
> > than F-21 beta and eventually the final release?
>
> No.
There may be leftover updates-testi
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:21 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and t
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:18
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and testin
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:10
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and testin
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:3 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
Adam Williamson fedoraproject.org> writes:
> I haven't seen this problem here, FWIW, when shut down actually works it
> does shut down, not reboot.
I've seen the reboot instead of shutdown for a few days now in each of my
fully distro-synced F21 and Rawhide VirtualBox guests.
--
test mailin
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 1 (TC1)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031 . Please
see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
testing instructi
NOTE: The last compose was RC2.
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 4
(RC4) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:19 . Please see the
following pages for download li
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:17 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and te
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:11 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and te
poma gmail.com> writes:
> core: introduce "poweroff" as new failure action types
>
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/core/failure-action.c?id=f07756b
>
> man 5 systemd-system.conf
> /StartTimeoutSec
> /StartTimeoutAction
>
> -> /etc/systemd/system.conf
>
> man 5 systemd.se
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
>
> Fairly often in the last few weeks, in both my F21 and Rawhide VirtualBox
> guests, I've had a shutdown while doing a yum distro-sync, shortly before
> the transaction starts (so I've never actually had to clean up a
&
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:7 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
Fairly often in the last few weeks, in both my F21 and Rawhide VirtualBox
guests, I've had a shutdown while doing a yum distro-sync, shortly before
the transaction starts (so I've never actually had to clean up a
transaction). I can then always reboot and redo the distro-sync without
incident. The
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:2 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 1
(TC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010 . Please see the following
pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing
instructio
Michael Catanzaro gnome.org> writes:
> I agree. Secret buttons not affect the behavior of menu items. If you
> have time, you could file a bug for this upstream and see where it
> goes
I commented at https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543996#c9 .
> It looks like https://bugzilla.gno
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> According to
> http://worldofgnome.org/opening-a-new-terminal-tabwindow-in-gnome-3-12/ ,
> this is a deliberate change. You have to go into Edit/Preferences/General to
> control whether "Open Terminal" opens the terminal in a
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:13 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and t
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Joachim Backes rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:
>
> > the gnome-terminal in F21 does not allow to open a *tab* in the terminal
> > window. I can only open a new terminal *window*.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
Joachim Backes rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:
> the gnome-terminal in F21 does not allow to open a *tab* in the terminal
> window. I can only open a new terminal *window*.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548
For now you have to use the hidden keyboard sequence Ctrl-Shift-T.
--
test
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Test Compose 6 (TC6)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:9 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> I previously had vte-0.34.9-3.fc20 installed in F20 stable (installed on
> July 3, which is probably the push date) but a yum distro-sync downgraded it
> to vte-0.34.9-2.fc20, and the -3 version does not appear in Bodhi. What
> happene
I previously had vte-0.34.9-3.fc20 installed in F20 stable (installed on
July 3, which is probably the push date) but a yum distro-sync downgraded it
to vte-0.34.9-2.fc20, and the -3 version does not appear in Bodhi. What
happened to it?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubs
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
From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100493#c2 :
'I didn't push it to F19 and F20 because the addon didn't work at all in
EL6. I don't have an F19/F20 machine available to test. I think it's
something related to the sqlite database migration, but I honestly don't
know how to debug it.
Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes:
> I have no idea if the package could be fixed to not do this, I'm not
> sure what that reconf does. You might open an R bug on it...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098663
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https:/
Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:45:33 + (UTC)
> Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > In rawhide, R-core drpms always fail to rebuild with an "md5 mismatch"
> > error. Is this a known problem?
>
> Can you paste
In rawhide, R-core drpms always fail to rebuild with an "md5 mismatch"
error. Is this a known problem?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> slub debugging is enabled this early in the kernel cycle. You'll want to
> boot with slub_debug=- .
In my VirtualBox Rawhide VM, I have that set, but find that it's almost
useless (I haven't done actual timings to see if it's totally useless, or
just close).
Mukundan Ragavan fedoraproject.org> writes:
> I was updating my Rawhide instance sometime ago and saw this
> interesting transaction (below). It looks like something that should
> not happen Is anyone else seeing this? Is this even an issue?
>
> I am particularly concerned about lines like
NOTE: The 32-bit Install DVD is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:15 . Please see the
following
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:13
. Please see the following pag
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:11
. Please see the following pages
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop and LXDE Lives are over their respective size
limits.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:8 .
Plea
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:6 .
Please see the following pages f
For a few weeks now, installing a DE by the usual method "yum install
@gnome-desktop" no longer works. For some DEs, I can make it work by using
"groupinstall" without the @ sign. For others, it says that the DE does not
exist. Is the old syntax expected to work again eventually, and if not, what
h
Currently there appears to be nowhere in the Install Test Results Matrix to
validate checksums for the Images/i386 and Images/x86_64 dirs (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_20_Install_Results_Template
). The results for Images/armhfp go under
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_AR
Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Chris Murphy colorremedies.com>
wrote:
>
> > Will there be a delta ISO to go from (final) beta to release TC1? Or is
it an all new download?
>
> Yes Chris, apparently it wasn't there when you last checked for it, but it
is
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 1 (TC1)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808 . Please
see the following pages for downloa
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 08:57 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > For the alpha I reported that I had problems (glacial speed being the main
> > one) trying to do a live install on a machine with 512 MB. I'd like to
> > report that for Beta a live install on th
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 5
(RC5) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:29
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
> > exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
> > sense for
BTW, the behavior of RC3 and RC4 is not *exactly* the same - for example, in
text install for i386 RC3 vs. RC4, the positions of the root and user spokes
are different - this is an example of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929177 .
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 03:23 +0000, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > The install images for 20 Beta RC3 and RC4 are definitely NOT identical. The
> > checksums are different, and just looking at the DVD, the options under
> > "In
The install images for 20 Beta RC3 and RC4 are definitely NOT identical. The
checksums are different, and just looking at the DVD, the options under
"Installation source" are different (RC3 only had one option, RC4 has the
regular complement) and the add-ons for "Basic desktop" are different (RC3
h
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 4
(RC4) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:26
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live, and the 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are
over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 3
(RC3) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/re
Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
sense for blockers, since those have to be fixed at each stage before going
to the next, but FEs don't.
On a related note, I've noticed a tendency in
NOTE: The 20 Beta RC1 compose was skipped. The last tested compose was TC6.
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
chan
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, and the 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are
over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 6 (TC6)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng
Frank videotron.ca> writes:
> First (as superuser root) try out the
>
> package-cleanup --cleandupes
>
> command. If that doesn't manage to remove the duplicate, give
>
> rpm --erase --justdb --noscripts --notriggers usbmuxd-1.0.8-10.fc20.x86_64
>
> a try.
You want to remove the old
Chris Murphy colorremedies.com> writes:
> Oh nice, it's one of those days. Although I now sorta feel like gutting
that wiki page to remove all the ancient Fedora clutter.
The thing is, there's always someone using an incredibly old version of
Fedora, or any version of RHEL/CentOS, and these kind
Joachim Backes rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:
> did anybody try to install F20-Beta-TC... in a VirtualBox-4.3 (from
> virtualbox.org) VM?
Using VirtualBox-4.3, I've had no problems with testing any of the 20 Beta
TC5 32- or 64-bit install images (DVD or netinst), or with running my
existing F20 or Rawh
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit LXDE Live, and the 32- and
64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fe
dlehman proposed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019500 as a
Beta Blocker, and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019502 as a
Final Blocker, but both are private, so they need to be fixed before the
meeting.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
piruthiviraj natarajan gmail.com> writes:
> Is there any other reason except for oversize for not building the TC4 for
LXDE,XFCE,MATE spin CDs?
They're located in the Live/ directory now.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
1 - 100 of 522 matches
Mail list logo
