August 2014 - server - Fedora Mailing-Lists

Soliciting agenda items for 2014-08-19 meeting

by Stephen Gallagher

9 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group

by Pierre-YvesChibon

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-08-19 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly meeting to discuss issues and planning for the Fedora Server Product and SIG. More information available at: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/283/

9 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work

by Chris Murphy

This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below. I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide. The WorkstationTechnical Spec says: "One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework." 1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)? 1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken? 2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI? 3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable? 4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be? The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful. References: "grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal" https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704 Thanks, Chris Murphy

9 years, 8 months

8
13
0 / 0

php fopen

by Daniel Leveque

Hello, I am running FC20 86_64. I have websites (imported from a previous FC version) which call writing data to files, namely by opening the file with fopen Hereunder the simple code which is run: =================== $TEXT = fopen($fichier, "a"); fputs($TEXT,$page); fclose($TEXT); =================== I receive following notice: *Warning*: fopen(guestbook.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in */var/www/html/IAAM/guestbook/index.php* I have checked all permissions and they look OK I have added selinux lines like : httpd_can_network_connect on I have enabled some lines in php.ini like: allow_url_fopen and allow_url_include on A strange thing: the page containing fopen is called index.php; I cannot chown/chgrp/chmod it. If I force it, automatically after running the script, returns to the previous position. I have found hords of items quoting this issue, but could not find any sound answer. So far I had no such problem with previous FC OS Thank you for your help Daniel

9 years, 8 months

2
1
0 / 0

2014-08-13 @ ** 16:00 UTC ** - F21 Blocker Review #6 Minutes

by Petr Schindler

========================================== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review-6 ========================================== Meeting started by pschindl at 16:00:03 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-08-13/f21-blo... . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (pschindl, 16:00:03) * Introduction (pschindl, 16:02:15) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (pschindl, 16:02:15) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (pschindl, 16:02:15) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (pschindl, 16:02:15) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (pschindl, 16:02:16) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (pschindl, 16:02:16) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (pschindl, 16:02:17) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:02:17) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:02:18) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:02:18) * 7 Proposed Blockers (pschindl, 16:03:25) * 6 Accepted Blockers (pschindl, 16:03:25) * 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:03:25) * 0 Accepted Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:03:25) * (1127280) OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory (pschindl, 16:03:34) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127280 (pschindl, 16:03:34) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (pschindl, 16:03:34) * We will discuss bug 1127280 after bug 1127103 will be resolved. (pschindl, 16:05:36) * (1129507) Anaconda deletes default EFI boot entry (pschindl, 16:06:40) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129507 (pschindl, 16:06:41) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (pschindl, 16:06:41) * AGREED: - 1129507 - RejectedBlocker - Anaconda doesn't support UEFI multiboot of Fedoras yet. (pschindl, 16:28:43) * (1129629) Anaconda doesn't recognize insufficient size of /boot partition (pschindl, 16:29:25) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129629 (pschindl, 16:29:25) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 16:29:25) * AGREED: - 1129629 - RejectedBlocker - Creating small /boot partition involves custom partitioning which is in beta criterion. Reproposing for beta blocker. (pschindl, 16:35:13) * (1129695) please provide minimal iso images for offline use (pschindl, 16:35:34) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129695 (pschindl, 16:35:34) * Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW (pschindl, 16:35:34) * AGREED: - 1129695 - RejectedBlocker - Demand for minimal isos doesn't violate any criterion. This is feature request which should be discussed elsewhere. (pschindl, 16:43:10) * (1127450) Black screen after userless installation of KDE live (pschindl, 16:43:26) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127450 (pschindl, 16:43:27) * Proposed Blocker, initial-setup, ON_QA (pschindl, 16:43:27) * AGREED: - 1127450 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug clearly violates the alpha criterion: "A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system." (pschindl, 16:50:30) * (1128675) missing crucial specfile changes (pschindl, 16:50:42) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128675 (pschindl, 16:50:42) * Proposed Blocker, java-1.8.0-openjdk, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 16:50:42) * AGREED: - 1128675 - RejectedBlocker - Missing components in specfile isn't blocker by itself. If needed this could be re-proposed as Freeze Exception (pschindl, 17:04:56) * (1119251) [abrt] tracker: vasprintf(): tracker-store killed by SIGSEGV (pschindl, 17:05:18) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119251 (pschindl, 17:05:18) * Proposed Blocker, tracker, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 17:05:18) * AGREED: - 1119251 - RejectedBlocker - This seems to happen only on upgraded systems which doesn't block alpha. If this is still an issue at beta with fedup upgrades, please re-propose as a beta blocker if it violates any of those criteria (pschindl, 17:11:59) * (1127103) Workstation image compose sometimes fails due to filesystem consistency issues (caused by sssd library being held open) (pschindl, 17:15:57) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127103 (pschindl, 17:15:57) * Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW (pschindl, 17:15:57) * Releng team works hard on bug 1127103. No need for action from our side for now. (pschindl, 17:18:10) * (1109603) dracut unable to boot 3.16 most of the time (pschindl, 17:18:25) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109603 (pschindl, 17:18:25) * Accepted Blocker, dracut, NEW (pschindl, 17:18:26) * it seems like bug 1109603 has needed attention and there is some work on it. (pschindl, 17:20:31) * (1123845) Server presets not applied in systemd scriptlets (pschindl, 17:20:44) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123845 (pschindl, 17:20:44) * Accepted Blocker, fedora-release, NEW (pschindl, 17:20:44) * ACTION: danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update (pschindl, 17:25:59) * (1088933) update grubby to support device tree options for arm (pschindl, 17:26:25) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088933 (pschindl, 17:26:25) * Accepted Blocker, grubby, POST (pschindl, 17:26:25) * dgilmore has this on his probably veeery full todo list. When there will be time he will finish it. (pschindl, 17:34:42) * (1110758) SELinux prevents cockpit from working on Fedora 21 (pschindl, 17:35:06) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110758 (pschindl, 17:35:07) * Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW (pschindl, 17:35:07) * There is an active work on bug 1110758 (pschindl, 17:38:06) * (1044778) wandboard uboot missing serial line speed in console environment variable (pschindl, 17:38:30) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044778 (pschindl, 17:38:30) * Accepted Blocker, uboot-tools, NEW (pschindl, 17:38:30) * dgilmore works on this (bug 1044778). (pschindl, 17:41:09) * u-boot will be updated to a newer upstream build soon. this particular bug may not be fixed with the update (tflink, 17:42:16) * the requested patch for wandboard console speed is a divergence from upstream and they need to be consulted before we start changing things. will discuss blocker status once that conversation has happened (tflink, 17:52:45) Meeting ended at 17:53:50 UTC. Action Items ------------ * danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update Action Items, by person ----------------------- * danofsatx-work * danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * pschindl (147) * tflink (82) * kparal (54) * danofsatx-work (44) * dgilmore (23) * pwhalen (17) * satellit (11) * bcl (10) * amita (10) * garretraziel (8) * pjones (6) * zodbot (5) * jsmith (5) * mkrizek (4) * satellit_e (2) * nirik (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

9 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Test-Announce] 2014-08-13 @ 16:00 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review #6

by Petr Schindler

# F21 Blocker Review meeting #6 # Date: 2014-08-13 # 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 6 proposed blockers and 1 proposed FE for F21 Alpha. The full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/alpha/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Alpha Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. Product specific plans are still being solidified, but that should be sorted quickly. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you in 213 minutes! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria

9 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group

by Pierre-YvesChibon

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-08-12 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly meeting to discuss issues and planning for the Fedora Server Product and SIG. More information available at: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/283/

9 years, 8 months

5
5
0 / 0

2014-08-06 @ 16:00 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review #5

by Mike Ruckman

# F21 Blocker Review meeting #5 # Date: 2014-08-06 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of the week again - more blocker review goodness. With flock going on, I don't know if there will be enough people to have a meeting - but that's OK because as of today we only have a single proposed blocker and a single proposed FE. This meeting will likely be just for checking on the status of our accepted blockers and ensure that they're being worked on. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/alpha/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Alpha Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. Product specific plans are still being solidified, but that should be sorted quickly. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you tomorrow! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org

9 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

rolekit: Return values from deploy()

by Stephen Gallagher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Right now, the deploy() routines have an output signature of '' (meaning they return on success or throw a D-BUS error, but return no results). I think we probably need to change this to 'a{ss}' (so that we can return a dictionary of responses). My reasoning is that we may have Roles that we deploy for which we will want to have one-time-only attributes returned (such as an autogenerated password). It seems to me that the best place for this would be in the response to the deploy() operation. Do you concur? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlPfcJQACgkQeiVVYja6o6P8MQCgoAxq8eJCtMP7/k8L8HGQ99Lp gvIAniKN4LZpMwC33KtXGelzOhbKbPZd =C16h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

9 years, 8 months

2
2
0 / 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group

by Pierre-YvesChibon

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-08-05 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly meeting to discuss issues and planning for the Fedora Server Product and SIG. More information available at: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/283/

9 years, 8 months

2
1
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server August 2014