I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
After reboot sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot
The system got to running transaction
But then seemed to hang. I waited about 15 minutes. The laptop fan was not running, indicating it was not using cpu. Alt-F2 etc would not switch consoles, so I could not get a bash shell to check. The only thing that responded is, on any keypress, it would repaint the screen with the list of packages to be installed etc. So it wasn't dead. But I don't think it was making any progress either. This is a fast machine with SSD, so I wouldn't expect to wait too long to see something happen.
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-30/
Best regards Ulf
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
On 30/04/2019 17.34, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-30/
Best regards Ulf _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 30.04.19 17:53, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
No issues here. Two physical systems running f30 now, both using UEFI.
Which hypervisor are you using? Is your disk visible in the grub shell?
Best regards Ulf
On 30/04/2019 18.48, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 30.04.19 17:53, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
No issues here. Two physical systems running f30 now, both using UEFI.
Which hypervisor are you using? Is your disk visible in the grub shell?
Earlier I had accidentally replied directly instead of to the list.
To answer the question publicly, I'm using KVM. The guest is an i386, the host is x86_64 running Fedora.
I have now been able to fix the guest by booting from a rescue disc (the F30 Everything installer ISO) and running grub2-install.
chroot /mnt/sysimage grub2-install /dev/vda
Then reboot.
On 30.04.19 21:14, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 30/04/2019 18.48, Ulf Volmer wrote:
Which hypervisor are you using? Is your disk visible in the grub shell?
Earlier I had accidentally replied directly instead of to the list.
To answer the question publicly, I'm using KVM. The guest is an i386, the host is x86_64 running Fedora.
I found
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686059
which may be related and is still open.
I have now been able to fix the guest by booting from a rescue disc (the F30 Everything installer ISO) and running grub2-install.
That are good news.
Best regards Ulf
On 4/30/19 5:53 PM, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
So far, the upgrade went fine on 2 out of 3 systems. On the 3rd system, I am also stuck with a grub prompt.
Ralf
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:53 AM Sjoerd Mullender sjoerd@acm.org wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
It could be this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F30_bugs#GRUB_boot_menu_is_not_populat...
Chris Murphy writes:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:53 AM Sjoerd Mullender sjoerd@acm.org wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
It could be this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F30_bugs#GRUB_boot_menu_is_not_populat...
If I deciphered this correctly: the default configuration of grub2 is that it now reads its configuration from someplace else, and not /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. The F30 grub2 package no longer installs /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, so it gets renamed to grub.cfg.rpmsave on the upgrade, but if grub2-install was never executed, the actual bootloader was never updated, so the older grub2 that's actually still booting the system is still looking for /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, hence the regression.
But something is still updating /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, since my grub.cfg timestamps are from the last F29 kernel update.
I just ran grub2-install on my up-to-date F29 system, and rebooted. Everything on F29 still seems to be in order, the grub menu is the same. If another kernel update gets installed before I attempt an upgrade to F30, will I still see /boot/grub2/grub.cfg getting updated with the newer kernel, or it'll just update whatever the actual grub2 reads, at boot time?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:12 PM Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Chris Murphy writes:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:53 AM Sjoerd Mullender sjoerd@acm.org wrote:
Now that the release announcement has been done, I can say that upgrading for me (on a VM) also failed. After the final reboot, I just got a grub prompt.
It could be this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F30_bugs#GRUB_boot_menu_is_not_populat...
If I deciphered this correctly: the default configuration of grub2 is that it now reads its configuration from someplace else, and not /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. The F30 grub2 package no longer installs /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, so it gets renamed to grub.cfg.rpmsave on the upgrade, but if grub2-install was never executed, the actual bootloader was never updated, so the older grub2 that's actually still booting the system is still looking for /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, hence the regression.
On Fedora 29 and older, grub2 did not install /boot/grub2/grub.cfg - that file was created during installation by grub2-mkconfig invoked by Anaconda, and then the grub.cfg was maintained by grubby which would edit the menu entries.
On Fedora 30, the grub.cfg is still created and used, but it's a static file that points to /boot/loader/entries for individual menu entry files (BLS snippets if you will). That's described in this Fedora 30 feature: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/30/ChangeSet#Make_BootLoaderSpec-sty...
The bug happens when a sufficiently old BIOS GRUB is present, I'll call it "grub installed" in contrast to "RPM installed". That's because the actual binaries that execute after POST are never updated by RPM updates; so you can have a current GRUB "RPM installed" but not "grub installed" unless you manually invoke 'grub2-install'. A too old GRUB somehow fails to load the blscfg.mod, a new GRUB module to support reading BLS snippets.
The grub.cfg.rpmsave is a copy of the original grub.cfg before the upgrade, and will still work (of course it'll boot a Fedora 29 kernel rather than a Fedora 30 kernel but that's OK). The new grub.cfg after a Fedora 30 upgrade conforms to the Bootloaderspec feature, meaning it's a fairly static file that doesn't get updated as kernels are installed/removed, instead the kernel RPM runs a script that creates/removes the BLS snippets found in /boot/loader/entries.
But something is still updating /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, since my grub.cfg timestamps are from the last F29 kernel update.
On Fedora 29, grub.cfg is modified by grubby (the real one, not the wrapper script on Fedora 30).
I just ran grub2-install on my up-to-date F29 system, and rebooted. Everything on F29 still seems to be in order, the grub menu is the same. If another kernel update gets installed before I attempt an upgrade to F30, will I still see /boot/grub2/grub.cfg getting updated with the newer kernel, or it'll just update whatever the actual grub2 reads, at boot time?
The former. A Fedora 29 kernel update will act just as it always has, grubby will modify the grub.cfg to include a new menu entry for the installed kernel.
During Fedora 30 upgrade, there's a conversion script that will extract existing menu entries from grub.cfg, create the individual BLS snippets in /boot/loader/entries, rename the old grub.cfg to grub.cfg.rpmnew, and create a new grub.cfg that conforms to the BLS feature being enabled.
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 17:34 +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
That announcement is dated today. My reply was yesterday.
poc
On 30.04.19 18:40, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 17:34 +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
That announcement is dated today. My reply was yesterday.
My apologies.
Best regards Ulf
On 4/30/19 6:40 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 17:34 +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
That announcement is dated today. My reply was yesterday.
Do you think, your reaction was appropriate?
Ralf
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 18:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 4/30/19 6:40 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 17:34 +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
That announcement is dated today. My reply was yesterday.
Do you think, your reaction was appropriate?
In what way was it inappropriate?
poc
On 4/30/19 8:25 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 18:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 4/30/19 6:40 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 17:34 +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 17:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
F30 has not been released yet. This should be reported on the Fedora Test list, not here.
That announcement is dated today. My reply was yesterday.
Do you think, your reaction was appropriate?
In what way was it inappropriate?
You redirected the OP to test@, at a point in time, when - though fc30 had not been formally announced - fc30 already had been in place on the download servers.
That said, you were just behaving bureaucratic and nit-picking, IMHO.
Ralf
On 4/30/19 8:33 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You redirected the OP to test@, at a point in time, when - though fc30 had not been formally announced - fc30 already had been in place on the download servers.
That said, you were just behaving bureaucratic and nit-picking, IMHO.
Even though it had been technically "released", an upgrade problem right at release is probably better brought to the attention of the QA people.
On 5/2/19 8:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/30/19 8:33 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You redirected the OP to test@, at a point in time, when - though fc30 had not been formally announced - fc30 already had been in place on the download servers.
That said, you were just behaving bureaucratic and nit-picking, IMHO.
Even though it had been technically "released", an upgrade problem right at release is probably better brought to the attention of the QA people.
Are you seriously trying to tell us, these folks will look into reported probs, when the release already was rubberstamped "go" several hours before the OPs posting and technically in place on the mirrors?
Serious, I find this rediculous.
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 08:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 5/2/19 8:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/30/19 8:33 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You redirected the OP to test@, at a point in time, when - though fc30 had not been formally announced - fc30 already had been in place on the download servers.
That said, you were just behaving bureaucratic and nit-picking, IMHO.
Even though it had been technically "released", an upgrade problem right at release is probably better brought to the attention of the QA people.
Are you seriously trying to tell us, these folks will look into reported probs, when the release already was rubberstamped "go" several hours before the OPs posting and technically in place on the mirrors?
Serious, I find this rediculous.
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
When dealing with a new release of Fedora, up to the point it is announced, I consider it to be unreleased. There doesn't appear to be any formal definition of what "released" means other than the announcement, so that's what I'm going with.
And the number of times we see posts related to unreleased software on this list leads me to the conclusion that, far from being bureaucratic and nit-picking, the occasional reminder is necessary.
poc
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
When is jury selection?
I imagine there must be an upcoming trial to address this travesty.
Allegedly, on or about 2 May 2019, Ed Greshko sent:
When is jury selection?
I imagine there must be an upcoming trial to address this travesty.
:-)
My vote is: Until it's officially announced AND released, it ain't a release. Even though we could all be expecting it on a prearranged date, it could be deliberately delayed by circumstances.
And ignoring issues about imminent releases: Without redirecting people to the correct list, they'll ask in the wrong place (which won't actually do them much good). And without reminding some people, they'll keep on doing it.
On 5/3/19 6:51 AM, Tim via users wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 2 May 2019, Ed Greshko sent:
When is jury selection?
I imagine there must be an upcoming trial to address this travesty.
:-)
My vote is: Until it's officially announced AND released, it ain't a release. Even though we could all be expecting it on a prearranged date, it could be deliberately delayed by circumstances.
That's what I call superflous bureaucracy beyond reason.
And ignoring issues about imminent releases: Without redirecting people to the correct list, they'll ask in the wrong place (which won't actually do them much good). And without reminding some people, they'll keep on doing it.
Face it, posting about user issues with an already finalized release to @test is waste of time and resources. The "testers" already have dropped "their pencils" and are gone. Nobody will listen nor respond.
Tim:
My vote is:?? Until it's officially announced AND released, it ain't
a release.
Even though we could all be expecting it on a prearranged date, it could be deliberately delayed by circumstances.
Ralf Corsepius:
That's what I call superflous bureaucracy beyond reason.
No, it's merely logical.?? If it's not available, *and* we're not aware that it's available, it's not released.?? It's as simple as that.
Trying to say that something is released (but yet not actually available), just because it's said that it will be released in a day or so's time, *is* bureaucratically perverse.?? And just plain nuts.
And ignoring issues about imminent releases:?? Without redirecting people to the correct list, they'll ask in the wrong place (which won't actually do them much good).?? And without reminding some people, they'll keep on doing it.
Face it, posting about user issues with an already finalized release
to @test is
waste of time and resources. The "testers" already have dropped
"their pencils"
and are gone. Nobody will listen nor respond.
You didn't read what I typed, did you??? Let me try rewording it:
Quite apart from your current pedantic stand about whether something is released because it's momentarily *about* to be released, I was *further* commenting on how people *continually* try posting on the user-list about software that is still in test, all year long.
And I don't care whether that's a post about whole distro, or merely about the next version of one particular package that's being debugged.?? If you want to solve a problem with unreleased software, it needs to be discussed with the group working on the unreleased software.?? And why's that?
Because the people working on the test releases aren't always subscribed to this list.?? They don't want to be.?? They want to keep this groups chatter out of the way of what they're working on.
And the opposite applies:?? The people working with the released software, on *this* list, want to keep the chatter about software-in-test out of the way.
That's why there's two lists.?? It ain't rocket science.
Ralf Corsepius:
That's what I call superflous bureaucracy beyond reason.
No, it's merely logical.??
Yes.
If it's not available, *and* we're not aware that it's available, it's not released.?? It's as simple as that.
It was available, it just had not formally been announced and the tester already stopped working on it.
It might just have been that you didn't know about.
Trying to say that something is released (but yet not actually available), just because it's said that it will be released in a day or so's time, *is* bureaucratically perverse.?? And just plain nuts.
That's the attitude of a bureaucrat: Reject questions for mere formalisms.
It's what I hate about Fedora. Some people being involved, seem to be more interested in formalisms and bureaucracy, than being pragmatically helpful and actually do some work on Fedora.
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 12:35 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
That's also a reasonable interpretation. I'll try to bear it in mind next time (and believe me, there will inevitably be a next time ...)
poc
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 12:35 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
That's also a reasonable interpretation. I'll try to bear it in mind next time
It's not my interpretation. There was a thread similar to this one a few years ago where someone said with authority (it seemed to me!) that this was the policy.
(and believe me, there will inevitably be a next time ...)
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 18:40 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 12:35 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
That's also a reasonable interpretation. I'll try to bear it in mind next time
It's not my interpretation. There was a thread similar to this one a few years ago where someone said with authority (it seemed to me!) that this was the policy.
Possibly, though I don't recall it. Maybe it should be written down somewhere. Maybe it *is* written down somewhere ...
(and believe me, there will inevitably be a next time ...)
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
I used to read the Test list as well as this one but stopped a couple of years ago when I realised I wasn't getting much out of discussions of Rawhide issues and decided to stick to the stable releases, so unifying the lists would be a retrograde step in my view.
poc
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:47:29PM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
I used to read the Test list as well as this one but stopped a couple of years ago when I realised I wasn't getting much out of discussions of Rawhide issues and decided to stick to the stable releases, so unifying the lists would be a retrograde step in my view.
Maybe it would be better to make the distinction a different way. The test list is used for communications of the Fedora QA team, and for people who are actively, well, _testing_ the software. This list is the _users_ list, and is for people who are _using_ the software.
Rather than saying "wrong list!" if someone is using a beta or rawhide release _as a user_, we could just be more accepting of those posts here. Of course, some times the response would be "well, that's beta still, so don't expect perfection". But in reality, a lot of software that's updated in rawhide or beta is upstream changes, and those changes are likely to land in final. To me, it makes perfect sense to talk about the user impact here. In the cases where it then goes into a QA topic, we could encourage discussion to move to the test list (or to a bug report).
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:06 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:47:29PM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
I used to read the Test list as well as this one but stopped a couple of years ago when I realised I wasn't getting much out of discussions of Rawhide issues and decided to stick to the stable releases, so unifying the lists would be a retrograde step in my view.
Maybe it would be better to make the distinction a different way. The test list is used for communications of the Fedora QA team, and for people who are actively, well, _testing_ the software. This list is the _users_ list, and is for people who are _using_ the software.
Rather than saying "wrong list!" if someone is using a beta or rawhide release _as a user_, we could just be more accepting of those posts here. Of course, some times the response would be "well, that's beta still, so don't expect perfection". But in reality, a lot of software that's updated in rawhide or beta is upstream changes, and those changes are likely to land in final. To me, it makes perfect sense to talk about the user impact here. In the cases where it then goes into a QA topic, we could encourage discussion to move to the test list (or to a bug report).
+1
I've just said more or less the same thing (but not as completely or as well...) in my preceding email.
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:48 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 18:40 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 12:35 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
That's also a reasonable interpretation. I'll try to bear it in mind next time
It's not my interpretation. There was a thread similar to this one a few years ago where someone said with authority (it seemed to me!) that this was the policy.
Possibly, though I don't recall it. Maybe it should be written down somewhere. Maybe it *is* written down somewhere ...
If it's correct, it should be written down in the list guidelines.
(and believe me, there will inevitably be a next time ...)
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
I used to read the Test list as well as this one but stopped a couple of years ago when I realised I wasn't getting much out of discussions of Rawhide issues and decided to stick to the stable releases, so unifying the lists would be a retrograde step in my view.
There could be a split whereby user-support for the test release is here and the machine-generated emails and QA organisational threads remain on the test list. If we could accept that some people ask for help about a test release here without pointing them to the etst list, I wouldn't care about a change similar ot the one that I've just enunciated.
My comment to unify the lists was more of a throwaway comment out of frustration than a serious proposal.
On 3/5/19 10:00 pm, Tom H wrote:
If we could accept that some people ask for help about a test release here without pointing them to the etst list,
I really do not see why people are so against that.?? I think it's common sense to let someone know they're asking the wrong people to for help in solving a problem, and pointing out where they should go.?? They're going to have to do that if they want to solve the problem.
If you go down the route of only having one list for everything. Along with the usual "how to do I do this with my software?" questions, you're going have all the "the save button needs to move 3 pixels to the left" design chatter.
Not to mention that new users are going to have to figure out that most of the chatter about scads of bugs on some test package have absolutely nothing to do with the released package that they're using, etc.
There's very good reasons to keep user and test lists apart.
On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 00:28 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
On 3/5/19 10:00 pm, Tom H wrote:
If we could accept that some people ask for help about a test release here without pointing them to the etst list,
I really do not see why people are so against that.?? I think it's common sense to let someone know they're asking the wrong people to for help in solving a problem, and pointing out where they should go.?? They're going to have to do that if they want to solve the problem.
I think some people also think that the Test list membership is a subset of the Users list, i.e. the devs are reading the Users list so they'll see the message. This is illusory.
If you go down the route of only having one list for everything. Along with the usual "how to do I do this with my software?" questions, you're going have all the "the save button needs to move 3 pixels to the left" design chatter.
Not to mention that new users are going to have to figure out that most of the chatter about scads of bugs on some test package have absolutely nothing to do with the released package that they're using, etc.
There's very good reasons to keep user and test lists apart.
+1
poc
We could always have a policy of adding the Fedora version in the subject line. Something like "F30: Query here"
On May 2, 2019 9:40:27 AM MST, Tom H tomh0665@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 12:35 +0200, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
I pointed out that a post relating to unreleased software should go on the Test list. That is the official policy of this list.
AFAIK, it's from time that this email [1] is sent that the "users" list is ok, not from the time that this email [2] is sent out.
[1] "is go", April 26:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
[2] "released", April 30:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
That's also a reasonable interpretation. I'll try to bear it in mind next time
It's not my interpretation. There was a thread similar to this one a few years ago where someone said with authority (it seemed to me!) that this was the policy.
(and believe me, there will inevitably be a next time ...)
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Allegedly, on or about 2 May 2019, Tom H sent:
We should unify the two lists so as not to have these delirious threads on an almost twice-yearly basis.
There would be too much noise.
On 29.04.19 15:43, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
After reboot sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot
The system got to running transaction
But then seemed to hang. I waited about 15 minutes. The laptop fan was not running, indicating it was not using cpu. Alt-F2 etc would not switch consoles, so I could not get a bash shell to check. The only thing that responded is, on any keypress, it would repaint the screen with the list of packages to be installed etc. So it wasn't dead. But I don't think it was making any progress either. This is a fast machine with SSD, so I wouldn't expect to wait too long to see something happen.
Did you press the ESC key to get the verbose output? If yes, at which step it is hanging?
Best regards Ulf
Ulf Volmer wrote:
On 29.04.19 15:43, Neal Becker wrote:
I just attempted update f29->f30 using sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30
After reboot sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot
The system got to running transaction
But then seemed to hang. I waited about 15 minutes. The laptop fan was not running, indicating it was not using cpu. Alt-F2 etc would not switch consoles, so I could not get a bash shell to check. The only thing that responded is, on any keypress, it would repaint the screen with the list of packages to be installed etc. So it wasn't dead. But I don't think it was making any progress either. This is a fast machine with SSD, so I wouldn't expect to wait too long to see something happen.
Did you press the ESC key to get the verbose output? If yes, at which step it is hanging?
Best regards Ulf
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
On 01/05/2019 17.50, Neal Becker wrote:
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
I've been able to go to another virtual terminal by type Ctr-Alt-F2, but only when using the graphical interface during the upgrade. After that I was able to login as root.
On 5/1/19 9:56 AM, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 01/05/2019 17.50, Neal Becker wrote:
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
I've been able to go to another virtual terminal by type Ctr-Alt-F2, but only when using the graphical interface during the upgrade. After that I was able to login as root.
How did you have a graphical interface during the upgrade? Were you using "dnf upgrade" instead of "dnf system-upgrade"?
On 02/05/2019 08.30, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 5/1/19 9:56 AM, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 01/05/2019 17.50, Neal Becker wrote:
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
I've been able to go to another virtual terminal by type Ctr-Alt-F2, but only when using the graphical interface during the upgrade. After that I was able to login as root.
How did you have a graphical interface during the upgrade? Were you using "dnf upgrade" instead of "dnf system-upgrade"?
I didn't do anything special. The systems I tried this on both run X11 (XFCE, so no wayland), and I just got this graphical display (Fedora logo in the middle of the screen and update messages at the top). I guess it's the plymouth package that takes care of these graphics.
I used dnf system-upgrade to do the upgrades.
Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 02/05/2019 08.30, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 5/1/19 9:56 AM, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 01/05/2019 17.50, Neal Becker wrote:
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
I've been able to go to another virtual terminal by type Ctr-Alt-F2, but only when using the graphical interface during the upgrade. After that I was able to login as root.
How did you have a graphical interface during the upgrade? Were you using "dnf upgrade" instead of "dnf system-upgrade"?
I didn't do anything special. The systems I tried this on both run X11 (XFCE, so no wayland), and I just got this graphical display (Fedora logo in the middle of the screen and update messages at the top). I guess it's the plymouth package that takes care of these graphics.
I used dnf system-upgrade to do the upgrades.
Actually, fiddling around with Alt-F2 etc I did manage to get to a root login shell.
Neal Becker wrote:
Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 02/05/2019 08.30, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 5/1/19 9:56 AM, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 01/05/2019 17.50, Neal Becker wrote:
It's too bad you can't get a bash prompt during the upgrade so you could run ps or something. My laptop doesn't have a disk activity light, so there's no way to tell if it's doing anything.
I've been able to go to another virtual terminal by type Ctr-Alt-F2, but only when using the graphical interface during the upgrade. After that I was able to login as root.
How did you have a graphical interface during the upgrade? Were you using "dnf upgrade" instead of "dnf system-upgrade"?
I didn't do anything special. The systems I tried this on both run X11 (XFCE, so no wayland), and I just got this graphical display (Fedora logo in the middle of the screen and update messages at the top). I guess it's the plymouth package that takes care of these graphics.
I used dnf system-upgrade to do the upgrades.
Actually, fiddling around with Alt-F2 etc I did manage to get to a root login shell.
So I did successfully complete the upgrade.
1. You can get a root login shell, but only after some time.
2. It did complete, but I had to wait a long time from the starting transaction until I saw any activity about installing any files. It really would be a lot more friendly if there was some way to see an indication that it wasn't just hung.
Thanks, Neal
-
Chris Murphy -
Ed Greshko -
John M. Harris, Jr. -
Matthew Miller -
Neal Becker -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Ralf Corsepius -
Sam Varshavchik -
Samuel Sieb -
Sjoerd Mullender -
Tim -
Tom H -
Ulf Volmer