[Test-Announce] 2012-07-30 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2012-07-30 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! Feels like just about time to have another meeting, with F18 Alpha starting to impend. (Can you start to impend? Quick, someone call the dictionary people). It's probably a good idea to discuss the status of the new anaconda UI: if anyone from the anaconda team can come along for that, it'd be a big help, thanks folks. If anyone has anything else to discuss, please propose it or bring it up in open floor. This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting. Please add any topic suggestions to the meeting wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20120730 The current proposed agenda is included below. == Proposed Agenda Topics == 1. F18 preparation / newUI status 2. AutoQA update 3. Open floor -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: emacspeak: hearing for a new owner
I will take it. On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Hi, > > For a long time - well since pre-Fedora history ;) - > I have maintained the emacspeak package > (see https://code.google.com/p/emacspeak/). > > In the past I generally found time to update it for > each Fedora release (it is not really much work) > but I don't actually use it myself at all or have > the hardware to test (ever) so I think it would be > better if someone else interested would take over > the package. Or maybe noone really uses it in Fedora? > (I just updated it in rawhide for the first time since > end of 2008 without a single bug report! oops - did anyone notice? :) > and also just added it to URM now so hopefully it can be kept > more up to date. > > So does anyone use it? Is anyone keen to maintain it? > I can still help to maintain it a bit longer but if noone is > really using it maybe better to orphan? > > I would appreciate a CC if you reply since I sometimes > miss devel list. > > Thanks, Jens > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Regards Lakshmi Narasimhan T V -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Boost 1.50 built into a side tag
Jon Ciesla writes: > I rebuilt my boost users into f18-boost, and now I'm getting rawhide > broken dep warnings for one that needs a rebuild for libGLEW. The > boost rebuild in f18-boost has the new libGLEW. I'm assuming I can > just let it sit until f18-boost is tagged into f18, right? Yes, I'm afraid so. I guess we might do some magic with tagging libGLEW into f18-boost and having your package rebuilt against both the new boost and libGLEW, but that sounds messy and I'd rather avoid it. Thanks, PM -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
Yeah nice to see such things are available. Using ssh to my own machine is not acceptable for me. This would mean a higher bill for energy :) Well I think I will stick to OBS as it is now, may the other maintainer Xiao-Long wants to get the packages into main Fedora. OBS perfectly suites my needs, I was hoping Fedora could adopt it. One of the best OSS software - OBS. One of the best distros - Fedora. Thanks anyway :) 2012/7/29 Dodji Seketeli : > Rahul Sundaram a écrit: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers > > This is really nice. I wasn't aware people could have access to remote > Rawhide machines for testing purposes. I guess it won't be really > useful for maintainers of packages that requires Xorg to function, but > still, this seems great to me already. > > If anything, non-graphical critpath package maintainers who don't test > their packages on Rawhide before pushing should be made aware of the > existence of this setup. > > Thanks > > -- > Dodji > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
Rahul Sundaram a écrit: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers This is really nice. I wasn't aware people could have access to remote Rawhide machines for testing purposes. I guess it won't be really useful for maintainers of packages that requires Xorg to function, but still, this seems great to me already. If anything, non-graphical critpath package maintainers who don't test their packages on Rawhide before pushing should be made aware of the existence of this setup. Thanks -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Suggestion: Continuous mass rebuild
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Tom Lane wrote: "Richard W.M. Jones" writes: Currently we're doing a mass rebuild about every couple of releases, ie. once a year. Since Dennis Gilmore has written this rebuild script already, why don't we run the script more or less continuously? Obviously we could pace the builds so they happen for each package about once a month and don't overload Koji. Then we track packages that don't build, say, 3 times in a row, and file FTBFS bugs for them and after that prioritize fixing them or kick them out of the distro. I don't think we should do this exactly like a regular mass rebuild: it would create useless churn in the package set, specfile changelogs, etc. What would be useful is to do scratch rebuilds on this sort of schedule, without changing anything in git, and file bugs anytime a rebuild fails. That is more or less what Matt Domsch used to be doing; now that he seems to have stopped, I agree that it would be a good thing for the Fedora project to start doing it officially. And we've been making progress on doing this - however we had to make sure we had sufficient builder systems and a way to quickly redeploy them. That's what I've been working on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Skvidal/BuildSystem -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 12:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > He seems to be talking about a web interface that lets you edit specs > and submit builds - some kind of basic text editor webapp hooked up to > the spec repository, I guess. If you really need this, and don't have any basic editing/checkin facilities on the crippled Windows box you are sitting in front of, then surely that means you're also incapable of doing even a *basic* smoke test of the resulting package. I would consider the absence of a web interface to be a *feature* of koji, in that case. -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
Damian Ivanov wrote: > Of course I do Fedora and SuSE on my PC. But from Mo-Fr. I am not at home > and use my companie's laptop where I can not install Linux and > wouldn't really like > to install additional software. And having two laptops around would be > too much :) Are you not even allowed to install Putty and log in by SSH from the laptop to your home PC? A Git implementation for Windows would probably make your work easier. A quick search indicates that such programs exist. Björn Persson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Suggestion: Continuous mass rebuild
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes: > Currently we're doing a mass rebuild about every couple of releases, > ie. once a year. > Since Dennis Gilmore has written this rebuild script already, why > don't we run the script more or less continuously? Obviously we could > pace the builds so they happen for each package about once a month and > don't overload Koji. > Then we track packages that don't build, say, 3 times in a row, and > file FTBFS bugs for them and after that prioritize fixing them or kick > them out of the distro. I don't think we should do this exactly like a regular mass rebuild: it would create useless churn in the package set, specfile changelogs, etc. What would be useful is to do scratch rebuilds on this sort of schedule, without changing anything in git, and file bugs anytime a rebuild fails. That is more or less what Matt Domsch used to be doing; now that he seems to have stopped, I agree that it would be a good thing for the Fedora project to start doing it officially. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Suggestion: Continuous mass rebuild
Currently we're doing a mass rebuild about every couple of releases, ie. once a year. Since Dennis Gilmore has written this rebuild script already, why don't we run the script more or less continuously? Obviously we could pace the builds so they happen for each package about once a month and don't overload Koji. Then we track packages that don't build, say, 3 times in a row, and file FTBFS bugs for them and after that prioritize fixing them or kick them out of the distro. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
On 07/29/2012 10:17 PM, Damian Ivanov wrote: > Thanks for the feedback guys. > > Of course I do Fedora and SuSE on my PC. But from Mo-Fr. I am not at home > and use my companie's laptop where I can not install Linux and > wouldn't really like > to install additional software. And having two laptops around would be > too much :) > > How can I package Fedora packages under these circumstances from Mo-Fr? > Any ideas appreciated. Running it under a VM would be a option. Also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OBS Fedora
Thanks for the feedback guys. Of course I do Fedora and SuSE on my PC. But from Mo-Fr. I am not at home and use my companie's laptop where I can not install Linux and wouldn't really like to install additional software. And having two laptops around would be too much :) How can I package Fedora packages under these circumstances from Mo-Fr? Any ideas appreciated. Cheers, Damian 2012/7/28 Peter Robinson : > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Damian Ivanov > wrote: >> First Thanks for the link and the answer. >> The guy ported it ten days later and it seems to work perfect now: >> http://www.martin-juhl.dk/2012/04/cbs-ready/ >> >> Second the problem with koji is that I have no web interface. I am > > It does have a web interface. Try http://koji.fedoraproject.org. Do > you mean you can't do what you want with the web interface? > >> one of the maintainers of the experimental unity for Fedora and I do a few >> other >> packages at home:damianator on OBS. I do lot of the spec file editing, >> patching etc. >> using the web interface from windows, because I can't have Linux on >> this one (long story). > > Well the fact you can't run Fedora on that machine is all well and > good, buy another machine you can. We cater for users of Fedora not > Windows. > >> Also for some people that want to manage their applications for >> multiple distributions is the *only* >> logical (administrative-able) option, correct me if you have something >> more encouraged by Fedora that has the same capabilities, >> I will be happy to use it. > > Fedora has always been for Fedora. We have packaging standards that > are all a lot different than most other rpm distros and while it might > be nice that OBS allows you to do packaging for multiple distros > Fedora has never and will never care about other distros. koji does > what koji does because it's Fedora. We don't pander to other distros > in the hope that someone might just package something for Fedora as > well. There's good reasons why we use koji and I very much doubt that > will change in the short to medium term just because it makes it > easier for you to package things for multiple distros from Windows. > > Peter > >> 2012/7/28 Jerry James : >>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Damian Ivanov >>> wrote: What would stop Fedora from doing this switch? >>> >>> First, I'll completely ignore the question of what's wrong with what >>> we have now. >>> >>> Second, speaking as one who tried to port OBS to a RHEL platform once >>> [1]: because of version dependency hell, and rampant SUSE-isms in the >>> code. Try to get OBS running on a RHEL or Fedora platform yourself. >>> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it sure isn't trivial (witness >>> http://www.martin-juhl.dk/2012/04/new-project-obs-for-centosrhel/). >>> >>> Footnotes: >>> [1] I was apparently afflicted with temporary insanity. >>> -- >>> Jerry James >>> http://www.jamezone.org/ >>> -- >>> devel mailing list >>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Shorewall and kernel-modules-extra
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 13:44:00 +, Glandvador wrote: Some shorewall (firewall) operations depend on several modules moved to kernel-modules-extra package. So how to deal with that? From my POI, either make shorewall depending of the kernel-modules-extra or move back some of the sch_* modules to the main kernel package. Need to know in order to fill a bug report :) You might want to discuss this on the Fedora kernel list or at the next Fedora kernel team irc meeting. While I would lean toward requesting the traffic control drivers be moved back to the kernel package, it's probably a good idea to discuss this first. However, one of these two things should get done. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Shorewall and kernel-modules-extra
Hi, Some shorewall (firewall) operations depend on several modules moved to kernel-modules-extra package. Without the kernel-modules-extra package shorewall stops with errors like: RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory leaving the system without network connectivity. Very fun for when upgrading a network only device :) In my case at least sch_ingress and sch_sfq. The functionality concerns traffic shaping and I think there are a lot of traffic shape scripts depending of those modules out of there. At least google suggest it. So how to deal with that? From my POI, either make shorewall depending of the kernel-modules-extra or move back some of the sch_* modules to the main kernel package. Need to know in order to fill a bug report :) Regards, glandvador -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I'll have odd connectivity the next week or so
I'm leaving for a vacation tonight and will be on the road through most of Monday. Similarly next week when I return. In between I'll should have some network access, but my schedule will be weird. If something important cmoes up, I'll probably be able to deal with it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
