NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair
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
1 year, 10 months
Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa
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.
???
1 year, 10 months
Re: digikam and kipi-plugins?
by Rex Dieter
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
8 years
Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel
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
8 years
Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero
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.
8 years
[Fedora QA] #273: Improve browseability of validation matrix pages
by fedora-badges
#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
8 years, 10 months
[Fedora QA] #228: SOPs for Everything
by fedora-badges
#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
8 years, 10 months
[Fedora QA] #277: Add ARM to release criteria / validation process somehow
by fedora-badges
#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
8 years, 10 months
