Per Bothner wrote:
> The Rawhide version of digikam is the very latest (0.10.0-rc1),
> but it fails to find any of the "Kipi plugins", even though I've
> installed the kipi-plugins package. This might be an upstream
> issue, since 0.10.0 is pretty bleeding edge and the kipi-plugins
> may even more bleeding-edge. Gwenview does seem to be see the
> plugins, so I'm wondering if there is there might be a
> Fedora-specific problem before I complain upstream ...
The f10 builds seem to work fine for me (finding the plugins), so perhaps
this is rawhide-specific?
To be clear, digikam's Settings -> configure digikam -> Kipi Plugins is
Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
> > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
> > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
> > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
> You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
> Can you ping the server?
> What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername?
> Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms...
rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9
accesses that host just fine.
Dear fellow testers,
I am sorry to ask, but I read about the changes on i686 moving to i586 and the i386 packages to i586. I had known prior to this that
i686 ---> Pentium computer PIII, PIV, Intel based CPU
i586 ---> AMD athlon, other AMD capable computer
x86_64 ---> AMD 64 capable CPU or similar processor
The default 32-bit x86 target in koji would be changed from i386 to i586
I assume this is only temporary as after this release it will go back to i686 right?
The other distributions I am familiar with that used i586 packages are OpenSUSE and Mandriva namely. This only makes me confused as the i586 packages are optimized for AMD processors and the i686 packages for Intel based CPU's like Pentium III/IV.
I am only a bit confused with this and if someone can help me undestand better I would appreciate it very much :)
Hi, all. Just before I left the Raleigh office after my week for
orientation and getting to know the rest of the QA team, we had a
meeting to try and set some goals for Fedora QA for this year.
'We' is myself, James Laska, and Will Woods. In the spirit of community
that I am supposed to be bringing to the team, I wanted to throw these
topics open to the list to try and get your feedback on the same topics
Off the top, we should be honest and open: Red Hat pays Will, James and
now myself to work on Fedora QA full time. In my case, what RH want from
me is quite purely and simply to try and help the community - external
contributors - to improve the quality of Fedora as a project. In Will's
and James's cases, though, things are slightly different. Part of their
value is to produce tools and work on processes that, as well as
contributing to Fedora QA, also contribute to the process that
ultimately improves the quality of Red Hat's other products. In addition
to that, they're real engineers who know how to write stuff, and all
engineers like to come up with ideas and implement them. So, given that,
there are always going to be things that the internal QA guys are
working on that are decided by RH or by themselves. No matter how open
and community-friendly we are, it will never be the case that the work
and goals of those paid by RH are entirely determined by the
However, bearing that in mind, it's still very valuable to RH, Fedora,
and the Fedora QA community to hopefully get all your opinions on these
issues, and it can certainly help to set my goals and help everyone
involved in this project think about what they're doing, what they'd
like to do, and how we can all work together towards the ultimate goal
of making Fedora an even better project.
So, to the topics! We set ourselves three simple questions
1. What does Fedora QA do?
2. What should it do?
3. What should it do first?
We'd like all of your input on these questions - just let us know what
you think. Broadly, we identified several things we - as a project - do:
* Exploratory testing: simply using Fedora, updates-testing, or Rawhide,
and complaining when stuff breaks. We agreed that this is at least as
important as anything else QA does, but sometimes isn't treated as such.
We agreed we should always emphasize that this is important and
valuable, try to help ensure it can be done as effectively as possible
(through things like the Bugzappers project), and try to always
communicate to everyone that simply doing this kind of testing is an
important and valued contribution to the QA project.
* Structured testing: this is the more in-depth testing we do, such as
regular testing of specific functions based on test plans, the use of
automated tools such as Beaker and Nitrate (once they're ready), and
test days. It also covers the case where another group contacts us with
a request to do specific testing on a certain function. A lot of
discussion here covered the Beaker and Nitrate projects; my take on
this, as a new guy, is that they sound like really great tools that will
help us a lot when they're ready.
* Bug zapping: all the great work done by the Bugzappers team, mainly
triaging and following up bugs to ensure they're properly handled from
report through to released update.
* Tooling: this is the work done, particularly by Will, to write the
tools that allow structured testing to take place. We agreed that it
would be good to get more contributions to this area, and that it's
important to communicate the tools we do / will have available so they
can be used to their full ability. This is important for things like
Bodhi - we'd like to make sure that kind of system is more widely used.
We also had discussions on things arising from the above, like the
importance of Rawhide, and meta-tasks like documentation and community
relations, which are important in attracting and enabling people to do
the actual tasks.
We also identified some specific goals. See also this Wiki page I
1. Increase participation in Rawhide: it provides a huge benefit in
terms of identifying issues and having them fixed quickly and early in
I am going to work on communication and documentation issues around
that, and Will is going to work on producing a tool which simply tests,
every day, whether you can a) install Rawhide fresh and b) update from
latest stable+updates to Rawhide. This serves two purposes: it both lets
you know whether it's worth actually attempting to install Rawhide that
day if you wanted to know, and if we track the results over time, it
provides an incentive to the developers to improve the reliability of
2. Make release testing more accessible
Encompasses many sub-tasks.
* defining what role QA serves in the release process
* defining what QA can do during the release process
* how can the community get involved?
* who tests what, when, and how?
This is what we're doing at present with the Wiki cleanup: the purpose
of this is to make it easier for people to get involved and know what we
3. Strengthen the QA tools portfolio: aim to have Nitrate available in
prototype form by June, as we believe it will be really useful both in
improving the amount and quality of testing we're able to do, and
providing a fun and easy-to-use system that will get more people
involved with QA. There's also Beaker, which may take longer. This is
what wwoods is mainly working on.
So, what's your opinion on the above? Do you have anything to add to the
lists of what QA does, or should be doing? Do you feel there are any
specific problems stopping us performing at our full potential, that
should be solved as soon as possible? Do you have any ideas on making QA
more accessible and getting more people involved? Please let us know.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
A few fedora upgrade test cases were created.These cases will test the fedora system upgrade with local CD/DVD.Get more details from:
Any suggestion or question,please feel free to reply. Your feedback would be welcome.
Hi, guys. Just a general issue mail for Bugzappers: I've recently been
talking to Seth Vidal, who wants special treatment for bugs in
components he maintains (yum and createrepo): he's happy for them to be
triaged according to the usual process, but he doesn't want the bugs
changed from NEW to ASSIGNED.
As a general principle, we should accept requests like this from the
owners of components, because we're here for them and not vice versa; if
our procedure doesn't work for them we should vary it so that what we do
is helping them and not frustrating them. We have a regular triager for
yum / createrepo who is aware of this (Jon Stanley), but anyone else who
happens to touch yum / createrepo bugs in future, please follow this
We used to have a Special Procedures wiki page for exceptions like this;
it seems to have got pretty much lost in the recent wiki re-design. For
now I've revised
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Components_and_Triagers#Set_Com... to add a new 'Special' column where we can add special instructions like this - I think that should be a good way to do it, as it's a high-visibility page that everyone should be looking at before triaging any given component. I envisage that short requests (like this one) can go directly in the table, longer ones could be added as footnotes (or to a separate page) and linked from the table.
(I took out the statistics from it, as discussed at the last meeting,
because they're obsolete and not helping anyone now, and the table
would've been getting too wide with those in it).
Does this seem sensible to everyone?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org