test May 2012

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

121 participants
334 discussions

NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary drivers? In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it says: "2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)." So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If it's a GPL thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at least give the option to the user? Thanks, -- David St.Clair dstclair(a)cs.wcu.edu

10 20

Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X and run mouse-test, then restart. Any ideas? Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing happens, the mouse goes crazy. ???

8 7

Re: digikam and kipi-plugins?
by Rex Dieter 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

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 empty? -- Rex

2 1

Re: rawhide report: 20050419 changes
by Ray Strode 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Hi, > Will yelp in FC4 be able to search and display man/info pages Yea, man and info pages work for me. --Ray

2 2

Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Since the latest xorg-X11 upgrade I receive the already mentioned XKB error and the mouse wheel is not working anymore. Has anybody seen this behavior? Regards Chris

3 3

Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM wrote: > 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 logs. > > 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.

7 9

[Fedora QA] #273: Improve browseability of validation matrix pages
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#273: Improve browseability of validation matrix pages -----------------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------------------+------------------------ = problem = cwickert and sandro have told us they have trouble finding the validation matrix pages when they need them. = analysis = we do have the pages logically named and categorized, but it's still not that easy to, for e.g., see all the desktop result pages for a given release at a glance. = enhancement recommendation = We could add more categories, for example "Fedora XX {{desktop,base,install}} validation results" categories, and any others that come to mind (suggestions please!) It would be nice to have 'next / previous' links that would let you browse from Final RC4 back to Final RC3 back to Final RC2 back to Final RC1 back to Final TC2 back to Final TC1 back to Beta RC4 and so on, but I'm not sure if that's plausible to implement automatically (it would be relatively easy to do manually when creating the pages, though). -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/273> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #228: SOPs for Everything
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#228: SOPs for Everything ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- We should have...SOPs for Everything! This is a meta-ticket with the aim of identifying, well, everything QA does, and making sure they all have SOPs. For a start, I'm going to do a survey of the QA calendar for a release, and check whether we have an SOP for each task. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/228> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #277: Add ARM to release criteria / validation process somehow
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#277: Add ARM to release criteria / validation process somehow ----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: arm | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------------ = phenomenon = ARM is becoming increasingly important to releases. Currently we have no kind of formal validation process for ARM images. Let's work with the ARM group to improve this, so we can test whatever is most important to them. = background analysis = ARM deployment is significantly different from x86: the standard way to do things is to provide a pre-built image to dump onto the system, not to 'install' via anaconda. So a lot of our test suite, which is based around anaconda, may not be entirely appropriate to ARM. Similarly, the desktop validation stuff isn't likely to be super-interesting to them, as desktop isn't currently a priority for ARM and things at that high a level ought to pretty much 'just work'. We should figure out with the ARM team what it would be most useful to test, and how to work testing into their release process. = implementation recommendation = We may need to write a few new tests, then I think we should design an ARM-specific validation matrix, which may be much smaller than the main ones. To start with we may also want to start separate ARM release criteria pages, to codify the things which are most important to ARM releases. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/277> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 9

[Fedora QA] #275: Create test plan for ARM
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#275: Create test plan for ARM ----------------------+------------------ Reporter: jdulaney | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Trac | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------ I've decided to create this ticket to track this. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/275> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

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 May 2012