Fedora Security Spin QA Efforts
by Adam Miller
Hello all,
This is mainly going out to those who are interested in the
(hopefully) upcoming Security Spin. I want to establish some QA
efforts as to provide a high quality experience to security
professionals and hobbyists alike who are interested in the project. I
would like to first do a break down of test cases for all the
security-centric packages involved in the security spin as that is the
"bread and butter" of the spin and are generally "niche" applications
which require some sort of expertise or a slightly higher learning
curve than your average web browser (just for example). Once that part
is complete, I would also like to apply AdamW's Desktop Test Cases to
it in order to get a higher level outlook of making sure that portion
of the Spin is of high quality as well.
Here is the current list of packages shipped with the Security Spin:
https://fedorahosted.org/security-spin/wiki/availableApps if anyone is
familiar with any of these apps it would be greatly appreciated if you
could put together a short snippet or "how to" for basic use that can
be used for a test case. Feel free to reply here to this thread and I
can input them into the wiki or post your results here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SecuritySpin:QA_Brainstorm
Many thanks to all,
-AdamM
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
14 years
Critical Path Wranglers - Draft Proposal
by Adam Miller
In the last QA meeting it was discussed that we needed some set of
policies or guidelines for handling memberships to the QA FAS group
for adding karma to the packages within the critical path of F13 (or
Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1). I volunteered to draft up such a document
in the wiki and I snagged a little bit of the wiki mark up from the
Ambassadors join page as a template, so thanks to who ever authored
that one.
Some notes on my Draft, I thought of putting together policies but I
don't entirely find this a policy style situation but I consider it a
"case by case" basis just as the Proven Packager process is. Its
essentially a "does this person do consistently good QA work?"
situation that (in my opinion) should be under review by peers to
decide their state of readiness to be responsible for karma that goes
into the Critical Path packages.
Ok, intro and disclaimer aside. Here's my proposal:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinCriticalPathWranglers:Draft
There are some details on the mentors concept that I think would need
working out (denoted by the FIXME bit) that I assume can be worked on
at the next QA meeting.
Questions, comments, and snide remarks welcome!
-AdamM
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
14 years, 1 month
[Fedora QA] #48: NFSv4 Test Day
by fedora-badges
#48: NFSv4 Test Day
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jlaska | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 13
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:06 -0500, caiqian(a)redhat.com wrote:
> I'd recommend next Tuesday (1/26), next Thursday (1/28), or any
> > Tuesday/Thursday after. This will be influenced by the amount of
> > prep work needed (see next step).
>
> Next Tuesday will be working for me. Steve, are you able to be online at
that date to provide helps if necessary?
>
> > = Step#3 - Create the Wiki page =
> >
> > This should help you think about what needs testing, and perhaps
> > designing the tests in such a way that might be helpful for a
> > distributed testers to attack. I'm not thinking of any good
> > distributed test scenarios for NFS, but I'm also not aware of the
testing
> > involved.If you can start with a outline of what testing you'd like to
see
> > covered, we might be able to get a better sense for how to make it a
> > good fit for a Fedora test event.
>
> I will be create a wiki page for it. I have not looked them in details
yet. Overall, we will be running some automated NFS tests like,
>
> * connectathon - git://fedorapeople.org/~steved/cthon04
> * new server test that - git://linux-nfs.org/~iisaman/pynfs.git
>
> Does it sound like a good fit for a test day?
>
It's not something I'd envision a strong level of community participation
on. Mainly, since Fedora QA doesn't have a lot of experience/skill in
this technical area. That said ... I'm sure there are communities that
might be interested in participating? So, some questions to help explore
our options ...
1. What external customers/communities should we solicit for attendance?
2. What is required to participate?
1. What distro? F12, Rawhide, other?
2. Installed system or Live image?
3. System requirements (single system or multiple)?
4. Can a virtual lab be used?
3. What test feedback is needed?
1. Is there a hardware-specific component where community contributor
feedback would be helpful (i.e. like xorg-x11-drv-* test days where
testers all have different hardware?)
2. Is there software-specific components where community feedback is
needed? (for example, running tests against different versions of nfs
(client+server), or across F-12, F-11 and rawhide)?
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/48>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
14 years, 1 month
F14 already...
by Adam Pribyl
Yesterdays update of my test machine brought it to Fedora 14, but I would
rather follow the F13 line. I understand the No_Frozen_Rawhide effort, but
did I miss the branch point to follow F13 instead moving further
with rawhide?
BTW: Is it not too soon to call it Fedora 14? Would it not be better to
use at least in /etc/issue something like Rawhide or Fedora 13.90? I know
of a newbie users reporting me problems with Fedora in past - they enabled
the rawhide repo and were happily using Fedora <stable>+1. Now I can
imagine users comming and reporting even Fedora <stable>+2 issues, while
even <stable>+1 is not released.
Adam Pribyl
14 years, 1 month
[Test-Announce] Yum Langpack Plugin Test Day Thursday 2010-02-25
by He Rui
Greetings Everyone,
YumLangpackPlugin Test day is coming up:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-02-25_YumLangpackPlugin
This event will focus on a yum plugin that allows langpacks to be
automatically installed for your native language when base packages with
langpacks get installed. So testing it with various languages is highly
welcomed to this test day.
In the past, we had to install the langpack of some packages such as kde
openoffice manually, see bug433512[1]. But now such langpack can be
installed automatically if yum-langpacks installed in advance. Good news
is that these cases steps can be easily followed and even execute on a
F12 system. If you are trying to install a F13 system in your local
language, you are already attending this test day! Check the above link
for detailed results.
Please come to this event and learn this useful plugin. I'm sure you'll
feel fun from it！o(*￣▽￣*)o
Thanks,
He Rui
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433512
--
Contacts
FAS Name: Rhe
Location: Beijing/UTC+8
TEL: 86-010-62608141
IRC nick: rhe #fedora-qa #fedora-zh
14 years, 1 month
LiveInst does not recognize existing LV layout
by Martin Sourada
So,
I'm playing with the thought of installing Rawhide (the frozen one; it's
the time of year for me to start testing it again) and the quickest way
seemed to download a nightly snapshot of desktop live, weep F11
partition (I dual boot with F12) and install on it. However, I have all
the partitions, sans /boot, in a LV Group... And the live installer does
not seem to be able to reuse it and since I want to wipe only two
partitions out of the four in the lvg, I'm stuck.
In more detail -- I've chosen custom layout and the installer detected
two partitions -- ext3 /boot and physical lvm partition, but not the
volume group and volumes inside it :( Gnome tools see those partitions
though and are able to mount them without issues...
So, I figured it would be best to ask here first whether this is
expected (or if it might be issue on my side) and if not, I'll file a
bug report.
Thanks,
Martin
14 years, 1 month
