Re: Proposal to Modify: Testcase dualboot with macOS

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:55 PM Geoffrey Marr  wrote:
>
> After reviewing our "dualboot with macOS" testcase [0], I noticed that the 
> testcase says it's based on a Mac running macOS 10.12 Sierra. At this point 
> in time, macOS Sierra is almost 5 years old. I would like to update this 
> testcase to reflect that it supports *any* OS from macOS 10.12 Sierra to 
> macOS 11 Big Sur. I have tested these myself for compatibility and find that 
> they all provide the necessary means for a dualboot install.

It's a teeny modification but you could make it macOS 10.13 High
Sierra as the cutoff. There's a chunk of hardware for which 10.13 is
the latest officially supported version. And also Apple only supports
two current versions of macOS, which are now 10.15 and 11. The vast
majority of macOS users upgrade within a year, so the bulk of the user
base is on 10.15 and 11.

There is a Fedora Media Writer signing issue related to a macOS bug in
10.13, so I wouldn't fuss one bit if you want to make the test case,
or at least for blocking purposes, 10.14 and higher.

> On a side note, I would also like to include a small notice within the 
> testcase that mentions that Fedora is not supported on the new Apple Silicon 
> M1 computers and that this testcase only applies to Intel-based Macs.

Yep. I expect there's some bootloader and kernel work before
Workstation aarch64 is ready and reliable on M1 macs.

> I have made these changes as I see them to my own wiki page [1]. Please 
> review the page and propose any suggestions here. Feedback is welcome. If I 
> don't hear any major squawks in a week or so, I will merge the changes into 
> the official Fedora QA wiki.

No objections.

Lurking around, I think kparal knows where it is, there's a write up I
did about 4 years ago on how to get an "out of the box" setup on macOS
without having to do a clean install. That is obsolete. It's based on
Core Storage (Apple's logical volume manager), whereas since then
Apple has abandoned that entire scheme in favor of a new file system,
APFS, that integrates a volume manager. That write up is probably
easily adapted for APFS - the use case is to get an exact
out-of-the-box setup for back to back test installs without having to
clean install macOS. If it's useful, I can help with a refresh.


-- 
Chris Murphy
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Introduction Amanda Cavalcante

[Robbi Nespu]

On 20/1/2021 9:26 am, Amanda dos Santos Cavalcante wrote:

Hello, Fedora Project people !!!

I am very happy to join the Fedora team !!!
I'm a beginner in the Linux universe and I'm very excited to help.
I have only 6 months of experience in Linux, but I want to enjoy it for 
the rest of my life.


My name is Amanda dos Santos Cavalcante, I am 34 years old, I live in 
Recife-PE, Brazil.
As I started to use a computer, around 2007, I always used Windows. 
Linux here in Brazil is still very wronged.
It was in 2018 that I started flirting with Linux through YouTuber 
Diolinux. But only in 2020 did I have direct contact with Linux.


My first contact with Linux was EndlessOS when I bought a notebook that 
came with the system by default. But I found it very limited for my 
profile and installed Mint 20 Cinnamon. I was using Mint for 3 months 
and then came to Fedora Mate 33.


I am in love with Fedora Mate 33 because it is teaching me to understand 
much more about Linux !!!

So I want to be able to help in whatever I can.
I hope to be useful so that the Fedora Project can be stronger and 
stronger !!!


Fas account: amandacavalcante
Telegram: @Amandextra
Emails: amanda_kid...@hotmail.com
cavalcante...@gmail.com


Welcome to Fedora, this is testing (QA) mailing list so people here 
expect you interested to do testing. You can check here[1] for information.


If you want to test new package, you can install testing repo[2] and 
give feedback on Bodhi if you encounter bug or nobug by giving karma.


Warning: If it maybe breaking you system and IMO, I think new linux 
don't like it..but to me, this is fun. You can learn and contribute at 
the same time.


Since you are using Fedora Mate Compiz, you can report bug if you 
encounter. I am sorry, I could find Fedora Mate Compiz SIG or it own 
mail list. Maybe someone else can show where it hide :)


If you think you are in wrong mail list, then check[4]. It can guide you 
which area you like to contribute.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
[3] http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/
[4] https://whatcanidoforfedora.org/en

--
Email: robbinespu[@]fedoraproject[.]org
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key: https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc


OpenPGP_0x0C81FA303B3A80BA_and_old_rev.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Introduction Amanda Cavalcante

[Amanda dos Santos Cavalcante]

Hello, Fedora Project people !!!

I am very happy to join the Fedora team !!!
I'm a beginner in the Linux universe and I'm very excited to help.
I have only 6 months of experience in Linux, but I want to enjoy it for the 
rest of my life.

My name is Amanda dos Santos Cavalcante, I am 34 years old, I live in 
Recife-PE, Brazil.
As I started to use a computer, around 2007, I always used Windows. Linux here 
in Brazil is still very wronged.
It was in 2018 that I started flirting with Linux through YouTuber Diolinux. 
But only in 2020 did I have direct contact with Linux.

My first contact with Linux was EndlessOS when I bought a notebook that came 
with the system by default. But I found it very limited for my profile and 
installed Mint 20 Cinnamon. I was using Mint for 3 months and then came to 
Fedora Mate 33.

I am in love with Fedora Mate 33 because it is teaching me to understand much 
more about Linux !!!
So I want to be able to help in whatever I can.
I hope to be useful so that the Fedora Project can be stronger and stronger !!!

Fas account: amandacavalcante
Telegram: @Amandextra
Emails: amanda_kid...@hotmail.com
cavalcante...@gmail.com
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [fedora-arm] Enabled some openQA desktop tests on aarch64

[Peter Robinson]

Hey Adam,

Sorry for the delayed reply here. I wanted to reply properly, then it
got lost in my inbox.

> Hey folks! Just a heads up that I merged a branch I've had lying around
> for weeks that enables *some* of the openQA desktop tests on the
> aarch64 Workstation image.

Thanks for this, it's really awesome!

> I left out some with known issues. desktop_notifications_postinstall
> needs to boot to runlevel 3, which is actually a bit tricky because of
> UEFI - we don't get the boot menu with a usable timeout and the trick
> we use to work around that on x86_64 (where we run the tests on BIOS)
> doesn't work on UEFI because the setting is in the UEFI vars which are
> not part of the main disk image.

Can you use "efibootmgr --timeout XX" to set a usable timeout at some
point during the process?

> To fix this I think I need to have the 'image deploy' test upload its
> UEFI vars disk image and have the desktop_notifications_postinstall
> test attach that as well as the main disk image, but I need to look
> into the ins and outs of that a bit and this is my last work day of the
> year, so I'll do it next year.
>
> The desktop_login test is generally fragile (things tending to get
> stuck or time out), but if it gets that far, it *always* fails when it
> tests locking the screen; on aarch64 this seems to cause the VM to
> permanently stop updating the display, or something. Again I haven't
> had time to look into this, and I want to enable the other tests
> without waiting for it.

Huh, weird, I would have thought given it's basically the same driver
stack it would have been closest here.

> The desktop_browser test is also failing, but I left that in because
> it's not a test bug, it's a distro bug. Firefox builds have just been
> disabled on aarch64 since 2020-11-20, so current composes don't have
> Firefox in them on aarch64 at all. There's a bug related to this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897675
> which I just gave a bit of a bump, because it shouldn't really be
> acceptable to just turn off our default browser's build on one of our
> primary arches for weeks at a time :(

That's been an ongoing issue with the firefox maintenance for years sadly :(

> This also breaks several of the other tests which use Firefox, like the
> Cockpit and FreeIPA browser tests.
>
> The tests should run on openQA prod from the next compose. The branch
> has been deployed on openQA lab (staging) for weeks (including the
> broken tests), so you can see how it's been behaving there.

How are they generally after a few weeks running?

Peter
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:20:54AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> we do. If it's just a once-per-cycle thing, we could maybe just have
> releng manually fire a post-release compose with a live image profile
> in it, and I can manually schedule openQA tests for that compose.

I actually have an unrelated use-case: we're getting some higher-end USB
sticks for swag and I'd love to also put an updated image on those.

If we can use the same one, that'd be super-extra bonus. It'd be kind of
nice to wait for 5.8.10 to exit updates-testing but I'm not sure how that
works with Mark's timeline.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Julen Landa Alustiza]

Good morning,

21/1/19 16:52(e)an, Peter Robinson igorleak idatzi zuen:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:50 PM Matthew Miller  wrote:


A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.

I can think of four possibilities:

1. Sure, use the live-respins!

2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we
recommend it for your use.

3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
called) when making your distribution image.

4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.


In all cases, they will run through their own internal testing and
validation. And, because of calendar things, they'd really love an answer
before the 26th of this month, which I know is short notice.

Of the above, I think #2 is the best, but requires someone other than me to
do significant work. So, I'm raising it here. :)


If they're doing the QE the #2 option isn't too hard, what artifact do
they need, the iso installer or the live image, something else?


Actually we already test the respins: 
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?distri=fedora=33=FedoraRespin-33-updates-20210114.0=1

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-IoT-34-20210119.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64

Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210114.0):

ID: 758713  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758713
ID: 758722  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758722
ID: 758727  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758727

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210114.0):

ID: 758706  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758706

Passed openQA tests: 14/16 (x86_64), 13/15 (aarch64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210114.0):

ID: 758720  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758720
ID: 758735  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758735

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
System load changed from 0.07 to 0.26
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/756111#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758707#downloads

Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload@uefi: 
System load changed from 0.16 to 0.32
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/756127#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758723#downloads
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Proposal to Modify: Testcase dualboot with macOS

[Geoffrey Marr]

Hi all,

I have spent the last two days experimenting with Fedora 33 on a 2017 12"
Macbook (Macbook10,1). Unlike some previous Macs I have installed Fedora
on, out-of-the box peripheral support is fantastic. I didn't have to
install a single driver myself, everything was included. /praise over

After reviewing our "dualboot with macOS" testcase [0], I noticed that the
testcase says it's based on a Mac running macOS 10.12 Sierra. At this point
in time, macOS Sierra is almost 5 years old. I would like to update this
testcase to reflect that it supports *any* OS from macOS 10.12 Sierra to
macOS 11 Big Sur. I have tested these myself for compatibility and find
that they all provide the necessary means for a dualboot install.

On a side note, I would also like to include a small notice within the
testcase that mentions that Fedora is *not* supported on the new Apple
Silicon M1 computers and that this testcase only applies to Intel-based
Macs.

I have made these changes as I see them to my own wiki page [1]. Please
review the page and propose any suggestions here. Feedback is welcome. If I
don't hear any major squawks in a week or so, I will merge the changes into
the official Fedora QA wiki.

Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_dualboot_with_macOS
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Coremodule/QA:Testcase_dualboot_with_macOS
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Test-Announce] Fedora-IoT 34 RC 20210119.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

[rawhide]

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 34 RC 20210119.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/34iot

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_34_RC_20210119.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_34_RC_20210119.0_General

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Mark Pearson]

On 19/01/2021 12:20, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 10:50 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
>> to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
>> don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
>> with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.
>>
>> I can think of four possibilities:
>>
>> 1. Sure, use the live-respins!
>>
>> 2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
>>    workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we 
>>    recommend it for your use.
>>
>> 3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
>>    called) when making your distribution image.
>>
>> 4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.
>>
>>
>> In all cases, they will run through their own internal testing and
>> validation. And, because of calendar things, they'd really love an answer
>> before the 26th of this month, which I know is short notice.
>>
>> Of the above, I think #2 is the best, but requires someone other than me to
>> do significant work. So, I'm raising it here. :)
> 
> So we kicked this around in the internal team meeting today, and we
> have a thought and a question:
> 
> 1. We're not too keen on just using the respins as-is. They're really
> pretty unofficial: they're not built by infra, and they're not built
> the same way we build 'official' images. That's fine for something we
> just kinda let sit there and say "hey use it if you want to", but it's
> not really appropriate for something a Large Computer Vendor would be
> deploying on thousands of boxes sold to the public. It seems better to
> be deploying actually-official Fedora bits on those.
> 
> 2. What's the expected cadence, here? Are they wanting a respin every
> week or maybe one per cycle? Because that seems likely to affect what
> we do. If it's just a once-per-cycle thing, we could maybe just have
> releng manually fire a post-release compose with a live image profile
> in it, and I can manually schedule openQA tests for that compose.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
I think it's fine to note that this request is from Lenovo...and
guessing which platform it's for shouldn't be a stretch of the imagination.

Some background: We need the latest kernel/alsa/pulse/libfprint and
their dependencies for supporting the new 2021 HW - and as we'll be
(hopefully) releasing before F34 is available we're looking for
F33+updates and the best way to provide that in a way that works for the
community and our preload process.

We'll definitely be doing testing on it - from my experience rather a
lot of testing. We've been doing a bunch of that already (and as an
aside so far it's looking good - still some issues to resolve but
they're more in the firmware space).

I'm confirming with the team (I don't do much myself with preloads) but
I think the Live image gives us everything we need so is a good
candidate - but of course thumbs up from the Fedora community would be
great and recommendations are appreciated.

My aim is to keep the image as "Fedora official" as possible. We stand
by the fact that we don't release modified Fedora - there aren't Lenovo
add-ins. Everything must come from the Fedora repository - but it's just
we need the most recent updates and hope to deliver that cleanly.

Release cadence is once. We just can't update our preload images that
often - there's a long test cycle, and energy certification that goes
with that image. It's one of the reasons the X1C8 is still shipping with
Fedora32, and P1G3 and P15 (soon!) will be with F33 for a long time. The
only reason to update would be a critical bug that couldn't be fixed
with an update once the platform was received.

We're happy to go with whatever the community recommends - and my
apologies for the short time frame. It's always going to be a little bit
of a balancing act as fixes come in upstream at the last minute and I
want the release that goes on the HW to be as good as it can possibly be.

Hope that makes sense. Holler if I've missed anything - my aim is not to
dump more work on you guys either :)

Mark
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-Rawhide-20210118.n.1 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Xfce raw-xz armhfp

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
8 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below

Failed openQA tests: 30/180 (x86_64), 27/106 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210114.n.1):

ID: 758350  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758350
ID: 758360  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758360
ID: 758361  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758361
ID: 758362  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758362
ID: 758372  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758372
ID: 758374  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758374
ID: 758385  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758385
ID: 758391  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758391
ID: 758393  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758393
ID: 758400  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758400
ID: 758401  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758401
ID: 758445  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758445
ID: 758455  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758455
ID: 758463  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
install_repository_nfs_variation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758463
ID: 758466  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_master@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758466
ID: 758470  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758470
ID: 758472  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_replica@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758472
ID: 758473  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758473
ID: 758485  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758485
ID: 758486  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_terminal@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758486
ID: 758487  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_update_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758487
ID: 758500  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758500
ID: 758505  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758505
ID: 758561  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758561
ID: 758565  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758565
ID: 758566  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758566
ID: 758567  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758567
ID: 758571  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758571
ID: 758574  Test: aarch64 universal install_repository_http_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758574
ID: 758600  Test: aarch64 universal install_anaconda_text@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758600
ID: 758606  Test: aarch64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758606
ID: 758611  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_64bit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758611
ID: 758614  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_64bit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758614
ID: 758618  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_disabled 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758618
ID: 758619  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_user_creation 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758619
ID: 758620  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_configured 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/758620
ID: 758621  Test: x86_64 universal support_server
URL: 

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 10:50 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
> to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
> don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
> with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.
> 
> I can think of four possibilities:
> 
> 1. Sure, use the live-respins!
> 
> 2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
>    workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we 
>    recommend it for your use.
> 
> 3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
>    called) when making your distribution image.
> 
> 4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.
> 
> 
> In all cases, they will run through their own internal testing and
> validation. And, because of calendar things, they'd really love an answer
> before the 26th of this month, which I know is short notice.
> 
> Of the above, I think #2 is the best, but requires someone other than me to
> do significant work. So, I'm raising it here. :)

So we kicked this around in the internal team meeting today, and we
have a thought and a question:

1. We're not too keen on just using the respins as-is. They're really
pretty unofficial: they're not built by infra, and they're not built
the same way we build 'official' images. That's fine for something we
just kinda let sit there and say "hey use it if you want to", but it's
not really appropriate for something a Large Computer Vendor would be
deploying on thousands of boxes sold to the public. It seems better to
be deploying actually-official Fedora bits on those.

2. What's the expected cadence, here? Are they wanting a respin every
week or maybe one per cycle? Because that seems likely to affect what
we do. If it's just a once-per-cycle thing, we could maybe just have
releng manually fire a post-release compose with a live image profile
in it, and I can manually schedule openQA tests for that compose.

Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net


___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Ben Cotton]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:14 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> Is there a reason we can't make option 4 to be: officially create OEM
> images and create an OEM preload guide?

Timeline mostly. It's certainly something we could do in the future.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:12:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Is there a reason we can't make option 4 to be: officially create OEM
> images and create an OEM preload guide? I don't personally know how
> preloads work, even though I'm trying to figure out how to improve
> "preloaded Fedora" experience over the next couple of cycles for
> Fedora KDE.
> 
> It might also make sense to make either monthly or quarterly
> full recomposes with updates for downstreams with all the artifacts,
> similar to how Microsoft used to do "rollup images" to support OEM
> preloads.

We totally _could_, if someone is willing to add that commitment to their
workload. Depending on the scope (x86_64 Workstation only, say) it isn't
*gigantic* but it's not like it's trivial.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:50 AM Matthew Miller
 wrote:
>
> A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
> to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
> don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
> with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.
>
> I can think of four possibilities:
>
> 1. Sure, use the live-respins!
>
> 2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
>workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we
>recommend it for your use.
>
> 3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
>called) when making your distribution image.
>
> 4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.
>

Is there a reason we can't make option 4 to be: officially create OEM
images and create an OEM preload guide? I don't personally know how
preloads work, even though I'm trying to figure out how to improve
"preloaded Fedora" experience over the next couple of cycles for
Fedora KDE.

It might also make sense to make either monthly or quarterly
full recomposes with updates for downstreams with all the artifacts,
similar to how Microsoft used to do "rollup images" to support OEM
preloads.




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Respins for OEM preloads

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:50 PM Matthew Miller  wrote:
>
> A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
> to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
> don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
> with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.
>
> I can think of four possibilities:
>
> 1. Sure, use the live-respins!
>
> 2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
>workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we
>recommend it for your use.
>
> 3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
>called) when making your distribution image.
>
> 4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.
>
>
> In all cases, they will run through their own internal testing and
> validation. And, because of calendar things, they'd really love an answer
> before the 26th of this month, which I know is short notice.
>
> Of the above, I think #2 is the best, but requires someone other than me to
> do significant work. So, I'm raising it here. :)

If they're doing the QE the #2 option isn't too hard, what artifact do
they need, the iso installer or the live image, something else?
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Respins for OEM preloads

[Matthew Miller]

A large computer vendor with whom we have a friendly relationship would like
to update the image they're shipping on their systems so that 1) new users
don't have quite so many updates immediately and 2) auiu newer kernel helps
with some upcoming things *vague vague handwavy vague*.

I can think of four possibilities:

1. Sure, use the live-respins!

2. The live-respins are unofficial, but we have run [this specific
   workstation iso] through our standard validation tests and we 
   recommend it for your use.

3. Use the netinstall and choose "apply updates" (or whatever that option is
   called) when making your distribution image.

4. Uh, sorry, we got nothin'.


In all cases, they will run through their own internal testing and
validation. And, because of calendar things, they'd really love an answer
before the 26th of this month, which I know is short notice.

Of the above, I think #2 is the best, but requires someone other than me to
do significant work. So, I'm raising it here. :)




-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Test-Announce] Fedora 34 Rawhide 20210118.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

[rawhide]

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 34 Rawhide 20210118.n.1. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
anaconda - 20210112.n.0: anaconda-34.17-1.fc34.src, 20210118.n.1: 
anaconda-34.18-1.fc34.src
python-blivet - 20210112.n.0: python-blivet-3.3.1-2.fc34.src, 20210118.n.1: 
python-blivet-3.3.2-1.fc34.src
pykickstart - 20210112.n.0: pykickstart-3.31-1.fc34.src, 20210118.n.1: 
pykickstart-3.32-1.fc34.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/34

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_Rawhide_20210118.n.1_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Audio Test Cases for Test Day (a proposal)

[Lukas Ruzicka]

Hello friends of Fedora,

the following is a proposal for the test scope of PipeWire audio in Fedora,
which could be tested as part of Fedora Audio Test Days. Please let me know
what you think about it.
Particular test cases have not been developed yet, but as soon as I have
the idea what is actually desired for testing, I will develop them and
prepare them as a material for test days.

Thanks for cooperation,
Lukas



Test Cases for Test Days (proposal) Description

The following is a proposal for test cases that could be tested as a part
of a Fedora Audio Test Day.
Possible test cases

   1.

   *PipeWire is used by default.* This test case should test that audio is
   controlled by PipeWire by default.
   2.

   *There are GUI and CLI tools to control sound available to the user*.
   This test case tests that sound production can be controlled using
   different tools.
   3.

   *Sound can be played back from all applications* – this test case tests
   that any audio application installable from Fedora repositories with a
   proper setup must produce audible sounds of expected quality using the
   selected hardware. This will cover the majority of JACK or ALSA based
   applications.
   4.

   *Sound can be recorded in all applications* – this test case tests that
   any audio application installable from Fedora repositories is able to
   record sound from the external sources in expected quality. This will also
   affect default applications, such as Firefox, that is used for conferencing
   and the ability to receive sound is crucial for this use case.
   5.

   *Dedicated hardware can be used to produce or record audio* – any
   dedicated audio hardware, especially soundcards, must play audible sounds
   of expected quality, as well as record them, if they have been successfully
   recognized by the operating system.
   6.

   *MIDI capable hardware communicates with the MIDI capable applications*
   – if the MIDI capable hardware is properly recognized by the system, it
   must be able to communicate with an application. However, it should not
   ever be required that the application understands that communication fully
   and without issues.


-- 

Lukáš Růžička

FEDORA QE, RHCE

Red Hat



Purkyňova 115

612 45 Brno - Královo Pole

lruzi...@redhat.com
TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED. 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Testcase Audio Recording Basic (new test case proposal)

[Lukas Ruzicka]

Hello friends of Fedora,

this is the follow up for my previous email which proposes a new test
Desktop test case to cover basic sound recording, because we feel that we
also should test some basic recording, especially in times when many people
need to communicate via online tools.
So far, recording has not been required to be tested.

Please, let me know what you think about this new test.



Testcase Audio Recording Basic (test case proposal) Description

This test case tests whether sound can be recorded on Fedora.
Prerequisites

   - If you do not have any sound recording application installed,
install *Gnome
   Sound Recorder* (the gnome-sound-recorder package).
   - Make sure the input sound device is correctly connected to your
   computer, so that you can expect that sound will be recorded, i.e. you have
   a microphone (or any sound producing device) connected to the input of your
   sound adapter.
   - Run *Settings* and navigate to the *Sound* tab. Check that your sound
   device is correctly recognized by the system. In case you have more input
   sound devices, make sure all of these devices are listed.
   - Select a preferred device for input and set the input level using the
   slider and the indicator below to avoid over-excitation of the signal and
   sound distortion.

How to test

   - Start a sound recording application.
   - Record a sound clip of about 10 seconds using the microphone (or
   another sound producing device).
   - Play back the recorded sound.

Expected Results

   - The recorded sound clip is *correctly* recorded and can be played
   back. Note that the quality of the recording depends on many factors, such
   as the quality of the sound adapter, the microphone, the wires used, etc.
   Therefore the sound quality should not be considered a test failing
   criterion unless the quality is much worse than expected.

-- 

Lukáš Růžička

FEDORA QE, RHCE

Red Hat



Purkyňova 115

612 45 Brno - Královo Pole

lruzi...@redhat.com
TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED. 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Testcase Audio Basic - a change proposal

[Lukas Ruzicka]

Hello friends of Fedora,

with Fedora 34, the current audio server Pulseaudio will be (probably)
replaced by PipeWire which will handle all system audio. Therefore we, at
Fedora QA, believe that some adjustments should be made to how we test the
basic audio.
The following is a proposal to change the Testcase_audio_basic (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_audio_basic) to cover the basic
Fedora audio listening.

Please, let me know what you think about it.

Thanks,
Lukas




Testcase Audio Basic (change proposal) Description

This test case tests whether sound can be played on Fedora.
Prerequisites

   - Make sure your sound device (hardware) is correctly connected to your
   computer, so that you can expect that sound will be played, i.e. you have
   speakers (or headphones) connected to the sound output of your sound
   adapter, or a receiver connected to a *S/PDIF* output.
   - Run *Settings* (or your desktop's alternative) and navigate to the
   *Sound* tab. Check that your sound device is correctly recognized by the
   system. In case you have more sound devices, make sure all of these devices
   are listed.
   - Select a preferred device for output. If you want to use an *S/PDIF*
   connection, set the device's profile to the appropriate choice (the output
   should be *Digital Stereo (IEC958)*).
   - Shut your system down entirely, then start it up again and log in to
   the desktop.

How to test

   - Start one of the default desktop media applications, for example
   GNOME's *Videos* or *Rhythmbox*. Alternatively, you can use any audio
   application of your choice.
   - Use the selected application to play a sound file located on your
   computer. If you do not have any suitable sound files, you can download an
   example from this location (http://bit.ly/ugVihP). Make sure the sound
   file uses a supported format. The *Ogg Vorbis* is a safe choice.
   - Try to change the sound level using dedicated tools, such as panel
   applets.
   - Start another audio application and make it play a sound
   simultaneously with the first audio application.

Expected Results

   - You can hear the sound playing over the selected sound device. You
   should not have to adjust any default volume settings in order to hear the
   sound after the computer has started.
   - When two audio applications play simultaneously, both sounds can be
   heard.
   - When you try to adjust the sound volume, it changes accordingly.


-- 

Lukáš Růžička

FEDORA QE, RHCE

Red Hat



Purkyňova 115

612 45 Brno - Královo Pole

lruzi...@redhat.com
TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED. 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org