test April 2011

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

160 participants
378 discussions

[Fedora QA] #116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- = bug description = Please update the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts test case to clarify that explicit Conflicts: tags are okay. = bug analysis = The relevant release criterion is "No file conflicts or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (CD/DVD) install". The term "file conflicts" here is important. I believe it's intended to mean that only cases where the files in two packages conflict, but there is no explicit Conflicts: tag in the packages. Where the conflict is properly marked in the packages with Conflicts: tags, this should not be considered an infringement of the criterion. = fix recommendation = Change expected results: 2. No file conflicts were detected for packages included in the media kit, unless the conflicting packages also have explicit Conflicts: tags -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 19

[Fedora QA] #173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: rhe Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- = problem = Now that install.img is included in initrd.img, it can no longer be loaded from somewhere else other than media, therefore Using 'askmethod' is actually the same as 'repo=' which is to direct anaconda using a specific package repo. = analysis = So I propose to obsolete the install source test cases of install sources from http, nfs, ftp, hd, and only test the package repositories of these methods. = enhancement recommendation = The following tests will be kept: - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceBootIso InstallSourceBootIso] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceDvd InstallSourceDvd] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:TestCases/Install_Source_Live_Image Install_Source_Live_Image] The following will be obsoleted: - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceHttp InstallSourceHttp] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceNfs InstallSourceNfs] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceNfsIso InstallSourceNfsIso] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceFtpAnonymous InstallSourceFtpAnonymous] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceFtpNonAnonymous InstallSourceFtpNonAnonymous] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceHardDrive InstallSourceHardDrive] Current package repository tests are listed at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Repository Category:Repository] Hard disk and nfs iso repo tests need be added, then they'll cover all package install methods. clumens, how do you think of these? do the remaining tests(install source+repo) cover the common use cases? -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/173> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 12

[Fedora QA] #84: Define install matrix baseline
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#84: Define install matrix baseline ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = * We almost didn't find [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/578633 RHBZ#578633 - Unable to enter passphrase to unlock encrypted disk partitions] * When re-using test results from a previous test run, it's possible to include results for tests that should be re-tested. This would be bad. = analysis = * F-13 Beta candidate#3 didn't include the correct version of ''plymouth'' (see RHBZ #578633). * Since it was Beta#3 and not much was supposed to change from Beta#2, some test results from the previous Beta#2 candidate were carried forward. * Thankfully, QA found the problem before release while running the QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install test. = enhancement recommendation = * Establish better guidelines about which test results can be carried forward from one candidate to the next (this isn't easy). Or perhaps, establish a subset of tests that all respins must undergo. * Perhaps link to, or document at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/84> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

[Fedora QA] #86: Add test coverage for text-mode upgrade
by fedora-badges 15 Jun '11

15 Jun '11

#86: Add test coverage for text-mode upgrade ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = See [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/590823 RHBZ#590823 - Text-mode upgrade fails when installing new bootloader -- KeyError: 'bootloader'] = analysis = Some tests in the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test install test matrix] involve user interface components in both text-mode and graphical-mode (native or VNC). One such bug (RHBZ #590823) involved a problem found only during text-mode upgrades to Fedora 13. The text-mode upgrade screen shows different options thanenhancement recommendation = = enhancement recommendation = I'm hesitant to recommend specific text-mode tests for each user interface element that differs in text-mode and graphical-mode (it would be exhaustive but unachievable). As a catch-all, testing a text-mode install is included in the current matrix. Is there something small that can be done to cover the gap? 1. Perhaps adding a text-mode upgrade test case to the install matrix, or ... 2. Adding variations to the existing upgrade tests [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootload… QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootloader] and [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader] to also test text-mode, or ... 3. <insert better idea here> -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/86> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 11

[Fedora QA] #177: Create script to move/rename wiki pages
by fedora-badges 14 Jun '11

14 Jun '11

#177: Create script to move/rename wiki pages -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Because of ticket#154 ... we could use help from a quick python script that would use the mediawiki api (and python-simplemediawiki) to rename existing category pages. I have some sample scripts I can point someone to if interested. The mediawiki api (see http://fedoraproject.org/w/api.php) explains the access details and arguments. We just need a script that we can provide a new and an old name, and it will handle renaming the category. Optional bonus would be a script that moved all pages from one category, to another. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/177> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #164: Multi-spin DVD review
by fedora-badges 17 May '11

17 May '11

#164: Multi-spin DVD review -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: ke4qqq | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Can QA review the proposed multi-spin DVD and offer it's opinion (pref thumbs up/thumbs down) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/164> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 8

How to debug plymouth?
by Ian Pilcher 08 May '11

08 May '11

For some reason, plymouth is not displaying a graphical boot theme on my newly installed (Fedora 15 Alpha) system -- despite the fact that kernel modesetting works just fine. How can I debug this? I've tried booting with "plymouth:debug" on the kernel command line, but I still don't see anything useful /var/log/boot.log, /var/log/messages, or the output of dmesg. This is a new Sandy Bridge system with "Intel HD graphics", BTW, but that shouldn't matter as long as kernel modesetting works, right? Thanks! -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher arequipeno(a)gmail.com "If you're going to shift my paradigm ... at least buy me dinner first." ========================================================================

2 2

Nouveau here yesterday, gone today
by SternData 06 May '11

06 May '11

Something that was working a couple of yum-updates ago isn't working now. When the nVidia graphics adapter is enabled, I'm OK until I log in. Then the shell screen is scrambled in various ways. http://www.smolts.org/client/show/pub_2e1dcbc6-c0c7-4634-94ed-e052a0dfb239 -- -- Steve

3 5

Re: Well, I've tried GNOME 3 now...
by Jon Masters 04 May '11

04 May '11

I think the point is that it takes many years to build traction. We should consider we have established players in desktop and a trend towards Android, iOS, MeeGo etc. powered devices in the consumer space over a pure play Linux distro. We would have been better served in the traditional distro space in building on the traction we had with GNOME 2. After all, it finally was offering a fairly compelling alternative. My blog has more personal opinion on consumer behavior and desktop adoption - my belief is innovation should happen in the new platform space, not on traditional desktops. Throwing away 30 years of tradition is not actually what mainstream computing users want. Sorry for top post. Jon. -- Sent from my phone - message formatted and/or shortened accordingly. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Williamson [awilliam(a)redhat.com] Received: Saturday, 23 Apr 2011, 10:51 To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases [test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org] Subject: Re: Well, I've tried GNOME 3 now... On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 01:56 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > While some interesting things have come out of the big changes in both > GNOME and KDE over the years, when the big changes land, they tend to > frustrate existing users. IMHO this is a big thing that has killed the > perpetual "year of the Linux desktop" hopes. GNOME 2.0 came out in 2002, so we had that interface for nine years. It's not like no-one gave it a chance. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

27 84

groupinstall Window\ Managers
by cornel panceac 03 May '11

03 May '11

# yum groupinstall Window\ Managers ... Warning: Group window-managers does not have any packages. No packages in any requested group available to install or update is this the expected behaviour? -- "The end is important in all things." -- *Yamamoto Tsunetomo* / *Hagakure* / *Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai* "The beginning is the most important part of the work." -- *Plato *

3 6

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
38
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test April 2011