test September 2014

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

71 participants
261 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

DNF kernel-devel: The Final Frontier
by poma 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

# yum install $(ls *3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64.rpm) ... --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved ================================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================================== Installing: kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 0.0 kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-core-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 40 M kernel-debug x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 0.0 kernel-debug-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-core-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 41 M kernel-debug-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 34 M kernel-debug-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-modules-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 17 M kernel-debug-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-modules-extra-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.2 M kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 33 M kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-modules-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 17 M kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-modules-extra-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.1 M Updating: kernel-headers x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-headers-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 3.2 M kernel-tools x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 226 k kernel-tools-libs x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-libs-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 18 k kernel-tools-libs-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-libs-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 5.8 k perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /perf-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.4 M python-perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /python-perf-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 344 k Removing: kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 0.0 kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 40 M kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 33 M kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 17 M kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 2.1 M Transaction Summary =================================================================================================================================== Install 10 Packages Upgrade 6 Packages Remove 5 Packages Total size: 193 M Is this ok [y/d/N]: y https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997#c22 # dnf install $(ls *3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64.rpm) ... --> Finished dependency resolution Dependencies resolved. ===================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ===================================================================================== Installing: kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 32 k kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 18 M kernel-debug x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 32 k kernel-debug-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 19 M kernel-debug-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 9.0 M kernel-debug-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 18 M kernel-debug-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 2.3 M kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 17 M kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 2.2 M Upgrading: kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 8.9 M kernel-headers x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 931 k kernel-tools x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 114 k kernel-tools-libs x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 38 k kernel-tools-libs-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 35 k perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 983 k python-perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 125 k Removing: kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 0 kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 40 M kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 17 M kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System .1 M Transaction Summary ===================================================================================== Install 9 Packages Upgrade 7 Packages Remove 4 Packages Total size: 96 M Is this ok [y/N]: N poma

2 5

[Fedora QA] #322: New release criterion: no X libs in the minimal install set
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#322: New release criterion: no X libs in the minimal install set ------------------------------+------------------ Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Release criteria | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ------------------------------+------------------ = problem = There are no rules holding us to a sane minimal package set. Features which are added to minimal could pull in the whole universe. = analysis = Drawing the line at X11 seems reasonable. (And Wayland.) We can argue at length about what minimal means, but this is a fairly clear line in the sand ''and'' is usually a reasonable split at a package level ''and'' matches our historic practice (see vim packages for example). = enhancement recommendation = "No package in the minimal install set may have a dependency chain which includes the libX11, the core X11 library (or its equivalent in Wayland). Packages must split functionality requiring this into subpackages, or be removed from the minimal package set." My suggestion is to make this an Alpha criterion, so such issues can be resolved early, but I don't have strong feelings on the particular timing. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/322> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 21

[Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests ----------------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: jreznik | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Blocker/NTH review process | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------------------------+------------------------ = problem = With Dennis (in CC), we discussed how to make release process, with Fedora.next in mind, more transparent and bullet proof. One issue is that releng request can become pretty messy, with full text included and sometimes it leads to errors (omission of packages in compose etc). = enhancement recommendation = One possibility is to visibly separate full text description (with bug numbers, reasons - it's good to have history) and the list of exact nvrs (maybe in code block?), try to avoid "qt bundle" etc. so it's easier to pick up the right list (for blockers, FEs + exceptional tools requests). Another thing is better coordination between requester/releng - to mark when/which list was picked up etc, in similar way how Go/No-Go decision is stated in the ticket. Now I'll let more space to Dennis, maybe example of how the request should look like to make it easy to parse would help. Long term (and preferred) solution would be to have automation in place, Blocker app talking to releng interface, compose database, web dashboard etc... -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/443> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #398: Add Secure Boot test case
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#398: Add Secure Boot test case ----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------------ We don't have an explicit test for doing a Secure Boot install. We should have one, for the most basic case (install to a system with a typical OEM SB configuration). -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/398> 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 September 2014