On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 17:21 +0100, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a really mayor but and I don't understand it why it fails when
> I tried grub2-install --force then grub installs without issues :(
> This should have been a blocker Fedora bug.
anaconda already uses grub2-install --for
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:25 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:16 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I did Fedora 16 Respin iso install with all latest packages, including
> > latest Anaconda package, and still had this issue.
> >
> > There were two ntfs partitions (W
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:59 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
>> > worse wit
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:59 PM, David Lehman wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
>> worse with regard to installing GRUB to a partition's primary sector.
>> P
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:34:49 -0600, TF (Tim) wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727814
> True, both ways should work but it doesn't really seem that common of a
> use case since (we thought) most people would be either ignoring all of
> their encrypted partitions or using the
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:27:15 -0400 (EDT)
Kamil Paral wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727814
> >
> > --- Comment #8 from Tim Flink 2011-09-01
> > 13:18:54 EDT --- Discussed in the 2011-08-26 blocker review
> > meeting. Rejected as a Fedora 16 beta blocker because it doesn't
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727814
>
> --- Comment #8 from Tim Flink 2011-09-01 13:18:54 EDT ---
> Discussed in the 2011-08-26 blocker review meeting. Rejected as a Fedora 16
> beta blocker because it doesn't violate any of the beta release criteria [1].
>
> Accepted as NTH bec
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:50:39 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:47:15 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
>> >> > Installation finished. No error reported.
>> >>
>> >> AFAIK
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 19:49:54 +,
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes:
>
> > I was getting dependency errors trying to reinstall gnome-panel (which
> > brings in gnome-shell).
>
> That problem, I DO have - gnome-panel-3.1.5-3.fc17.x86_64 is one of the
> packages
>
Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes:
> I was getting dependency errors trying to reinstall gnome-panel (which
> brings in gnome-shell).
That problem, I DO have - gnome-panel-3.1.5-3.fc17.x86_64 is one of the packages
I couldn't install, and my current version is gnome-panel-3.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64
whic
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 18:48:48 -0400,
Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:43:59 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Um, exactly what you quoted. Larger updates tend to get more false
> > negative feedback. That's the main problem developers cite with them.
>
> Then it seems like the
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 19:31:31 +,
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "broken" - for me, the original problem (trying
> to
> pull in 32-bit packages, and then failing due to conflicts) is gone now in F16
> and never appeared in Raw
Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes:
> Rawhide is broken today (and has been for a few days now), with regard to
> gnome-shell. You can grab the latest gnome-shell built for F16 and things
> work.
I'm not sure what you mean by "broken" - for me, the original problem (trying to
pull in 32-bit packag
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 16:59:22 +,
Andre Robatino wrote:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-August/155799.html
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731617
>
> No progress in fixing it yet. Though I see roughly the same set of broken
> dependencies in Rawhide,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:28:37 +0300,
Kalev Lember wrote:
> When in the past rawhide was always what you'd get as the next upcoming
> Fedora release, this is now slightly different. In the past, updates to
> rawhide would slow down significantly when nearing a new release and the
> repo would
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:50:39 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:47:15 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
> >
> >> > # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
> >> > Installation finished. No error reported.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, this won't be bootable, unless grub-install has run
> >> success
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:47:15 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
>
>> > # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
>> > Installation finished. No error reported.
>>
>> AFAIK, this won't be bootable, unless grub-install has run
>> successfully be
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:47:15 -0400, TH (Tom) wrote:
> > # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
> > Installation finished. No error reported.
>
> AFAIK, this won't be bootable, unless grub-install has run
> successfully before, because that all that the above commands are
> doing is popu
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 17:18 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:20:54 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:59 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Between TC1 an
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:18:56 +0200, me wrote:
>
>> Doesn't work for me.
>
> # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda3
> Installation finished. No error reported.
>
> # grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
> Installation f
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:18:56 +0200, me wrote:
> Doesn't work for me.
# grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda3
Installation finished. No error reported.
# grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true '(hd0,3)'
Installation finished. No error reported.
--
Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.0.1-
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:18:56 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Installation finished. No error reported.
Actually, it did work. Try doing the boot.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:20:54 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:59 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
> > > worse with r
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:15 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > yum --setopt="protected_multilib=0" blah blah blah
> >
> > which might help in situations where things are already deeply sideways.
>
> worth noting for the record that, as always when using 'force' type
> parameters to a package
On 08/25/2011 08:12 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most
> recently yesterday. Here's my experience:
>
> - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth.
A bit off topic, but I would personally encourage everybo
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:59 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
> > worse with regard to installing GRUB to a partition's primary sector.
> > P
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:28 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment...
> > >
> > > When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > > Error: Protected multilib versions:
> > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 !=
> > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686
> > >
> >
> > I have no idea what these er
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
> worse with regard to installing GRUB to a partition's primary sector.
> Partitioning hasn't changed. TC1 managed to install GRUB to /dev/s
Between TC1 and release of F16 Alpha, something must have changed to the
worse with regard to installing GRUB to a partition's primary sector.
Partitioning hasn't changed. TC1 managed to install GRUB to /dev/sda3.
Anaconda now reports failure to install, and I've found this on
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:28 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment...
> >
> > When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen.
>
> and also when upgrading from ssh.
>
> things have definit
Jonathan Corbet (corbet...@lwn.net) said:
> - Somewhere in the middle, while I'm not looking, the update kills the
>running session and/or X server - I come back to a login screen. It
>used to be safe to run "yum update" from a terminal window, but,
>seemingly, not anymore. Not real
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment...
>
> When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen.
and also when upgrading from ssh.
things have definitely gotten a lot more fragile over the last
release or two.
Da
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > > Error: Protected multilib versions:
> > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 !=
> > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686
> > >
> >
> > I have no idea what these er
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Error: Protected multilib versions:
> > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 !=
> > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686
> >
>
> I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them.
> Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, t
On 08/24/2011 08:11 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100
>> Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle...
>>
>> Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Obviously noone would try to bundle completely unrelated packages in a
> single update. So I am not really what you are arguing about exactly.
Adam wanted to discuss "Enormo-Updates" and I think we just did.
*shrugs*
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
T
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:53 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates together even when they
> > are not direct dependencies. He is referring to that
>
> Yes, I understand Bodhi can link any group of packages together.
>
> >
>
On 08/25/2011 04:23 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
So there are items in this list that could be shipped in a separate
update without any negative side-effects? I'm not a KDE expert, but I
don't see a package that could be left off.
If there are cases where package A and B are in an update and d
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates together even when they
> are not direct dependencies. He is referring to that
Yes, I understand Bodhi can link any group of packages together.
>
> Example:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-l10n-4.6.5-1.fc14,k
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> the problem is if either update gets karma and gets pushed before the
> other, it puts the repo into a broken state. And since they're
> inter-dependent, it causes confusion like people -1ing the gnome-shell
> update because they don't ha
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:43:59 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Um, exactly what you quoted. Larger updates tend to get more false
> negative feedback. That's the main problem developers cite with them.
Then it seems like the problem is the negative feedback, not
the size of the update. Maybe it shou
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:36 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I didn't say anything about dependencies. People file negative karma on
> > stuff like 'Obscure Menu Item Z doesn't work', or 'there's a typo in the
> > docs'. The more packages there are in an update, the mo
On 08/25/2011 04:06 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> You kept mentioning adding more packages to updates causes problems.
> Typically adding packages is due to a dependency.
>
> If you're not talking about dependencies, what are you talking about?
Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I didn't say anything about dependencies. People file negative karma on
> stuff like 'Obscure Menu Item Z doesn't work', or 'there's a typo in the
> docs'. The more packages there are in an update, the more likely this is
> to happen, and the more likely bad negative karma
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:21 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > more or less, each package added to the update exponentially increases
> > the likelihood of false negative karma from someone whose local mirror
> > doesn't have one of the packages, or who hit a really tiny
Adam Williamson wrote:
> more or less, each package added to the update exponentially increases
> the likelihood of false negative karma from someone whose local mirror
> doesn't have one of the packages, or who hit a really tiny bug which
> shouldn't be a case for a -1.
The first part sounds like
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 16:43 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > But yeah, I can see the problems with Enormo-Updates as well. I'm not
> > sure there's a really great way to handle updating such a giant mass of
> > inter-dependent packages, but if Luke or anyone else has a
Adam Williamson wrote:
> But yeah, I can see the problems with Enormo-Updates as well. I'm not
> sure there's a really great way to handle updating such a giant mass of
> inter-dependent packages, but if Luke or anyone else has any
> suggestions...
What's the problem with Enormo-Updates?
--
test
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 16:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts
> > > and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to
> > > every mirro
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts
> > and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to
> > every mirror yet. If you're particularly impatient you can set up a side
> > repo
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> > > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes.
> > > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last fe
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:08 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes.
> > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha
> > rc's and now alpha).
>
>
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 08:53 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 08/24/2011 03:55 AM, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > I've seen this with all alpha RC's and now with F16 alpha. At
> > first bootup a selinux targeted policy label is required. Is this
> > as designed?
> >
Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes.
> > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha
> > rc's and now alpha).
>
> > Error: Prote
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle...
>
> Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good
> idea. Starting with the total lack of docume
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100
Richard Hughes wrote:
> I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle...
Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good
idea. Starting with the total lack of documentation about how
the heck it actually works when (for instance) mul
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-August/155799.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731617
No progress in fixing it yet. Though I see roughly the same set of broken
dependencies in Rawhide, the problem does not exist there.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedorapr
On 24 August 2011 16:08, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> Error: Protected multilib versions:
>> gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 !=
>> gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686
> I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them.
I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle...
Rich
On 08/24/2011 11:08 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
>> I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes.
>> I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha
>> rc's and now alpha).
>
>> Error: Protect
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes.
> I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha
> rc's and now alpha).
> Error: Protected multilib versions:
> gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2011 03:55 AM, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> I've seen this with all alpha RC's and now with F16 alpha. At
> first bootup a selinux targeted policy label is required. Is this
> as designed?
>
> Jurgen
>
no. It is a b
e installed
---> Package polkit.i686 0:0.101-7.fc16 will be installed
---> Package readline.i686 0:6.2-2.fc16 will be installed
---> Package sane-backends-libs.i686 0:1.0.22-3.fc16 will be installed
---> Package sqlite.i686 0:3.7.7.1-1.fc16 will be installed
---> Package zlib.i686 0:1.2.5-4.fc16 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
1:control-center-3.1.5-3.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
1:control-center-filesystem-3.1.5-3.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
empathy-3.1.5.1-1.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
evolution-data-server-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
1:folks-0.6.0-5.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-contacts-0.1.2-2.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-keyring-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-keyring-pam-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-menus-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-panel-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
gnome-shell-3.1.4-2.gite7b9933.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
libsocialweb-0.25.19-1.fc16.x86_64 from fedora
libsocialweb-keys-0.25.19-1.fc16.noarch from fedora
p11-kit-0.3-2.fc16.x86_64 from fedora
p11-kit-0.4-1.fc16.x86_64 from updates-testing
Error: Protected multilib versions:
gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 !=
gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686
This is on a clean install of F16 alpha.
Jurgen
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
I've seen this with all alpha RC's and now with F16 alpha. At first
bootup a selinux targeted policy label is required. Is this as designed?
Jurgen
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:57:01 -0400,
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> It seems the Fedora repo and the Updates Testing repo, but not the
> Updates repo, are enabled for F16 Alpha. What is strange is that I
> enabled Updates (and disabled Updates-Testing) and got a bunch of
> different
It seems the Fedora repo and the Updates Testing repo, but not the
Updates repo, are enabled for F16 Alpha. What is strange is that I
enabled Updates (and disabled Updates-Testing) and got a bunch of
different updates from what is in Updates-Testing (which currently has
broken deps).
/etc
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:14 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 01:16 PM, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> > I've just tried F16 alpha rc4. Installation went without a hitch but
> > unfortunately the system still hangs when grub tries to boot. BZ#
> > 730124.
> >
Hey, folks. Just a quick heads-up to expect F16 Alpha RC5 within the
next hour or two. We have the go/no-go meeting (again) tomorrow so we're
really squeezed for time in validating this, if people could help out
with testing that'd be great. The official announcement on test-announce
wil
On 08/16/2011 01:16 PM, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
> I've just tried F16 alpha rc4. Installation went without a hitch but
> unfortunately the system still hangs when grub tries to boot. BZ#
> 730124.
>
> Any pointer how to get past this would be appreciated.
>
> Jur
Hi,
booting the 32 Bit Gnome Live CD drops to textmode.
blockdev
invalid format on line 1 of table on stdin
command failes
Usage: blockdev -v -q .
invalid format on line 1 of table on stdin
command failes
ln: failes to create symbolic link '/dev/root': File exists
dracut Wanung: No
I've just tried F16 alpha rc4. Installation went without a hitch but
unfortunately the system still hangs when grub tries to boot. BZ#
730124.
Any pointer how to get past this would be appreciated.
Jurgen
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
If using F16/Alpha/RC4/live for "install to harddisk", (I selected an
extended partition for that), the installer fails on "writing bootloader
to partititon", so I can't boot that installed F16. See BZ 730915).
--
Joachim Backes
http://www.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes
On 08/16/2011 11:05 AM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> If using F16/Alpha/RC4/live for "install to harddisk", (I selected an
> extended partition for that), the installer fails on "writing bootloader
> to partititon", so I can't boot that installed F16. See BZ 730915).
===
#fedora-bugzappers: F16 Alpha Blocker Bug Review Meeting #5
===
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-08-12/fedora-bugzappers.2011-08-12-17.02.html
On 08/11/2011 10:04 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> When setting the host name, there's an option to
> configure network, though, where you can go in and change things with
> the NM interface. I hate that interface
I have to add 2 things:
1. in dual head mode (my specific configuration at least) the b
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 10:04 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:19:27PM +0800, Frederic Muller wrote:
> > On 08/11/2011 08:41 PM, Timothy Davis wrote:
> > > Two things:
> > > 1) I used livecd-iso-to-disk to create an install USB and it worked
> > > until anaconda got to examini
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:19:27PM +0800, Frederic Muller wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 08:41 PM, Timothy Davis wrote:
> > Two things:
> > 1) I used livecd-iso-to-disk to create an install USB and it worked
> > until anaconda got to examining storage devices (bz#728883), I don't
> > want to have to keep b
On 08/11/2011 08:41 PM, Timothy Davis wrote:
> Two things:
> 1) I used livecd-iso-to-disk to create an install USB and it worked
> until anaconda got to examining storage devices (bz#728883), I don't
> want to have to keep burning DVDs to test
> 2) Is there a way to activate wireless networking in
Two things:
1) I used livecd-iso-to-disk to create an install USB and it worked until
anaconda got to examining storage devices (bz#728883), I don't want to have
to keep burning DVDs to test
2) Is there a way to activate wireless networking in anaconda? My only
network connection is wireless (Belki
# F16 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #3
# Date: 2011-08-12
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
The Fedora 16 alpha release has been pushed back a week, so we get
another blocker bug review meeting for alpha!
The next Fedora 16
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> In an F16 Alpha install done via an upgrade from F15 final, I get various
> rendering issues in GNOME Shell, such as
>
> http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/tmp/screenshot-f16-alpha-damage1.png
>
> Not always, but at
On 08/10/2011 11:00 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> In an F16 Alpha install done via an upgrade from F15 final, I get various
> rendering issues in GNOME Shell, such as
>
>http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/tmp/screenshot-f16-alpha-damage1.png
>
> Not always, but at
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:00:34 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Not always, but at random times. Also:
> - perceived lag (compared with F15)
> - areas of the screen not getting refreshed in time, staying blank
>until I touch the window or move a GTK slider,
>e.g. individual mailbox subject
In an F16 Alpha install done via an upgrade from F15 final, I get various
rendering issues in GNOME Shell, such as
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/tmp/screenshot-f16-alpha-damage1.png
Not always, but at random times. Also:
- perceived lag (compared with F15)
- areas of the screen not
pdates/microcode_ctl-1.17-18.fc16
(jlaska, 18:27:57)
* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726744 (jlaska, 18:28:12)
* at-spi-python has broken deps (jlaska, 18:28:16)
* feedback needed from dgilmore on 726744 - is a pyorbit update still
required for F16 Alpha?
# F16 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #4
# Date: 2011-08-05
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
Mark your calendars ... the fourth Alpha blocker review meeting starts
at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers this Friday. We'll r
on 08/02/2011 10:01 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> The basic storage checker throws an unhandled exception
> apparently when it sees sda. Sda contains several bootable
> systems.
>
I may have same problem. In my case anaconda crashes after host name setup
menu. I used empty ext4 forma
Downloaded the x86_64 iso and wrote it to a jump drive with
Live USB creator. Was unable to install from this image.
Better luck was had with a dvd-rw.
The basic storage checker throws an unhandled exception
apparently when it sees sda. Sda contains several bootable
systems.
I got past that by
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-29/f16-alpha-blocker-review.2011-07-29-17.00.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-29/f16-alpha-blocker-review.2011-07-29-17.00.txt
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers
# F16 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #3
# Date: 2011-07-29
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
It's once again time for everyone's favorite activity - blocker bug
review meeting time !!
Fedora 16 has branched and
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-22/f16-blocker-review.2011-07-22-17.00.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-22/f16-blocker-review.2011-07-22-17.00.txt
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-22/f1
# F16 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #2
# Date: 2011-07-22
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
!!! ALL-CAPS RED-ALERT OMG LOL !!!
Fedora 16 Alpha test compose is less than *one* week away (Jul 26) and
F16 Alpha isn't far b
#fedora-bugzappers: F16-Alpha Blocker Review
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-15/f16-alpha-blocker.2011-07-15-17.00.html
Minutes (text):
http
- Original Message -
> # F16 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #1
> # Date: 2011-07-15
> # Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
> # Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
Just a reminder that the first Fedora 16 Alpha blocker bug review meeting
start
On 07/14/2011 12:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
> To make sure I'm understanding, do you mean the next goal would be to
> determine the status of the SysV->systemd feature and whether it will be
> on track for a Beta TC1 target? If it isn't ... FESCO must decide
> whether to hold the release, or drop t
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 11:31 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:16 AM, James Laska wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
> >>> Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that de
On 07/14/2011 11:28 AM, James Laska wrote:
> Long story short, I agree it makes sense to keep this separate from the
> blocker process.
Agreed as well
The sysv to systemd feature is a special case and should not be mixed
into the standard QA workflow.
The QA community should be aware of how imp
On 07/14/2011 11:16 AM, James Laska wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
>>> Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision
>>> from a recent FESCO meeting?
>> It's the one held on 15 June.
>
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 18:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 19:25 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 07/13/2011 07:17 PM, James Laska wrote:
> > > Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't
> > > think I could have articulated nearly as wel
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
