Re: F36 Beta blocker status summary

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > Now that we've reached the branch point, it's time to start doing > weekly blocker summaries again! Beta freeze begins on 22 February and > the current target Beta release date is 15 March. > > Action summary > > > Accepted

Re: Proposal to adjust final criterion for backgrounds

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:43 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:

Re: Proposal to adjust final criterion for backgrounds

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:43 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Well, you could check based on EVR of fedora-release. Stable release > > > is always has Release field bumped

Proposal to adjust final criterion for backgrounds

Right now, we have two main criteria around the default background/wallpaper for Fedora releases: Basic Criterion: "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases." Final Criterion: "The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and used as the

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending my response now. On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal wrote: > > Hi, > > comments are in the text: > > On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM

Re: "nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module ..."

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:20 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 08:11 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:50 PM Robert P. J. Day > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > > > > > > I

Re: "nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module ..."

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:50 PM Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > > I know that fish module can be installed on Fedora Rawhide, but I > > have seen that many modules still require Platform29 and cannot be > > installed. Your errors say that Platform30 is

Proposal: Drop most optional packages from Server DVD

For a long time, the Fedora Server Edition has provided a fairly lightweight default installation, but a fairly heavyweight DVD. This is because we opted to include a lot of infrastructure-related content on the disk, such as BIND, FreeIPA, MariaDB and PostgreSQL, among others. The reality these

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this. > > > > I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta >

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was > > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it b

Re: repos used by anaconda during Branched

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:00 AM Kamil Paral wrote: ... > b) don't use testing updates at all during the whole cycle > > This makes the install process more stable (testing updates can't break it). > The installed packages more closely match what the composes consist of (the > composes never

Re: Ideas for discussion (Issue #567)

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:01 AM Kamil Paral wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:48 PM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I have been assigned to organize a discussion about this issue >> https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/567. >> >> I have thought about some possibilities (see lower or the

[Test-Announce] Issues with Google Chrome, PyCharm, Steam and other third-party repos in Fedora 29 prereleases

It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora 28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided from that package with their default configuration. What this meant in practice is that

Re: Fedora 29 Kernel 4.19 Test Day 2018-10-25

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> > I must be missing something. I'm using Fedora 29 on upgrade from Fedora 28 > and even with u-t enabled I still don't have kernel 4.19, it only ever wants > to update kernel 4.18, later being 4.18.13. > > Is 4.19rc8 now on nightly

Re: F29 / Rawhide - Bogus ssh host key mismatch errors mentioning "rsa-sha2-256"

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:23 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! Just a heads up, if anyone on F29 or Rawhide finds that > suddenly ssh connections are failing, claiming the host key does not > match and asking for a 'rsa-sha2-256' key: a mysterious hero known only > as 'sedrubal' figured

Re: F29 Gnome Install process - A pain

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 9:41 PM Ed Greshko wrote: > > This will probably be considered a "minor" pain. And, since I don't use > GNOME except > in a VM for testing, I guess it is. > > I'd just like to go on record to say I dislike a few things about the install > process. > > 1. There is no

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora > > 30+: > > * Printing must work on at least one printer ava

Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which seems like an oversight. I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status > > of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID > > d

Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting disagreed, for a variety of

Re: GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:12 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi all, > > As many of you know, I've been gone half the summer. I'm back now since > Monday though and just in time for GNOME 3.30.0 :) > > We are quite a bit behind with the builds, like half of GNOME is still > at 3.28.x or at various

Re: Fwd: QA: Testcase Remote logging (pleas review)

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:43 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > Hello Adam, > > I have updated using the template the way you are suggesting and it works > as expected. Thanks. > Please, do make a review in Server SIG so that I can finalize it and get > it ready for real world. > For the record, the

Re: [Request To Review] Testcases for dnf modular

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:38 PM Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > Hey All, > > Now that we have the F27 Modular Server Beta, It will be great to have the > test cases. > I've started writing them, I would like to have the feedback and thoughts > on them. > I have mostly used dnf

Re: Fedora 27 Modular Server Edition Release Candidate is available

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:04 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > It's been a long journey folks, but we finally have something that may make > it through a Go/No-Go decision. You can find the release candid

Fedora 27 Modular Server Edition Release Candidate is available

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 It's been a long journey folks, but we finally have something that may make it through a Go/No-Go decision. You can find the release candidate images at http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/27_Modular_Beta-1.5/ Please download, load into a VM

Re: Modular Server RC testing

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:13 AM Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: pschi...@redhat.com > > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Cc: "Adam Williamson" , "Sumantro Mukherjee" < > sumuk...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Thursday,

Re: Cheese: no longer works with my webcam, other testing requested

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:54 AM Tomas Popela wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Adam Williamson < > adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks! >> >> Doing the 'desktop_menus' validation test for Final RC-1.2 - the awful >> one where you have to run every app on

Re: Schedule concern next week: holidays ahead!

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:54 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 21:41 -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think we can have RC compose once all the blockers are resolved and QA > > files the ticket even during the holidays, even though I am not

Re: Updating the applications and launchers policy

On 05/22/2017 10:13 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > Currently we have the following as a final blocker criterion: > > "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with > each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy." > > That

Re: What is Everything boot

On 05/14/2017 11:43 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: >> On May 13, 2017 11:43:28 AM PDT, Alessio Ciregia wrote: >>> What is Everything boot? What is the difference between Everything boot >>> and, in example,

Re: Fedora 26 Beta blocker status mail #1

On 05/13/2017 02:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 05:13:04PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hi folks! The Fedora 26 Beta freeze is fast approaching (it's 2017-05- >> 16), so it's time for a blocker status mail. > I think > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6781 > is a beta

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/12/2017 06:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: Why would we

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/11/2017 01:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:33 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're >>> trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from >>> builds? From my QA POV, since

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/11/2017 02:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > For this particular Firefox example, what is the

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/09/2017 08:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 19:39 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> However, it seems that our >> blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've >> been trying to follow: that alternative architectures sh

New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the package maintainer opted to stop building Firefox on anything but i686 and x86_64. This

Re: F24 alpha 1.6, QA:Testcase_Services_start systemctl --all --failed

On 03/20/2016 10:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Alpha 1.6 > > Is this expected or should bugs be filed? > > # systemctl --all --failed > UNIT LOAD ACTIVE SUBDESCRIPTION > ● ldconfig.service loaded failed failed Rebuild Dynamic Linker Cache > ● systemd-rfkill.service

Re: logins and ssh-agent

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/07/2016 09:54 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > Some moons ago, ssh-agent, was started automatically on login. > Now, sadly, it is not. My hypothesis is that ssh-agent was started > by Xorg, but now that Xorg runs over XWayland, ssh-agent is not >

Re: Non-image blocker process change proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/2015 06:42 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >>> Taking all of this into account, would this be a reasonable >>> idea? 1. At Go/No-Go voting time, all updates which block F-N >>> release but belong to F-M (M>> pushed

Re: Off Topic -- "X-BeenThere: " missing from list message headers.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/23/2015 08:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:50:00 -0500 Stephen Gallagher > <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> A similar and more annoying problem is that mailman 3 lost the >> X-List-Administrivia

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/24/2015 06:48 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > That would be FESCo. If more people hold your opinion, we should > probably file a ticket and ask them. It's definitely a valid > opinion. And it would definitely be easier for QA. But in this > case, I

Re: Off Topic -- "X-BeenThere: " missing from list message headers.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/23/2015 04:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:42:53 -0800 Adam Williamson > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 11:35 -0800, Joshua Andrews wrote: >>> Suddenly my message filters stopped working. I've

Re: Non-image blocker process change proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2015 07:16 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >> The biggest issue is this, I think. We probably need to encode >> "Special Blockers" into the Go/No-Go process. I don't think that >> assurance that it will be fixed on time is necessarily good >>

Re: Non-image blocker process change proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/18/2015 07:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > With either approach, the basic goal is to make it more feasible > to keep an eye on each of the different categories of 'release > blocker' bugs; right now we have solid processes in place for >

Re: [F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Máirín Duffy <du...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi! > >> On 11/02/2015 08:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> * All Cockpit functional criteria must be satisfied when the user is >> running any of the following blocking browse

[F24 Criteria Change] FreeIPA Upgrades

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Up to now, all of our release criteria for FreeIPA have been in terms of fresh installations on a newly-installed system. However, there are numerous individuals out there who are running FreeIPA on Fedora systems and who would suffer greatly if an

Re: [F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/01/2015 04:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Dan Mossor > wrote: > >> I'm with Simo. I *DO NOT* want to place a burden on a FOSS >> operating system to be 100% compatible with non-FOSS software.

Re: Karma request: freeipa and pki-core updates to fix FreeIPA upgrades

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/02/2015 03:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! We have a big problem with F23 at the moment, where > upgrades from previous releases break FreeIPA. A couple of updates > have just been sent out to try and fix this, and it'd be great if >

Re: Karma request: freeipa and pki-core updates to fix FreeIPA upgrades

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > >> On 11/02/2015 03:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hi folks! We have a big problem with F23 at the moment, where >> upgrad

Re: Newbie in FedoraProject team

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2015 05:24 AM, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 28/10/15 22:11, Alexander Kolesnikov wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> My name is Alexander Kolesnikov, I am from St. Petersburg, >> Russia. I use Linux about 6 years: 4 years as system >> administrator of

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC6 call for testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2015 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! We have what should hopefully be the final RC for Fedora > 23 available for testing now. It would be really great if folks > could help us run as many of the validation tests as possible ahead

Re: [F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/23/2015 08:41 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:35:11 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Recently, we discovered a bug in gnutls that caused Cockpit to >> be unreachable by recent versions o

[F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Recently, we discovered a bug in gnutls that caused Cockpit to be unreachable by recent versions of Google Chrome. It was ambiguous what the release criteria actually means, since it didn't specify which browser applications were blocking. I'd like to

Re: Proposed new blocking criterion for Fedora Server: GSSAPI SSO via SSH

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/06/2015 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm OK with this so long as it comes along with a matching test > case. > Yes, assuming this is agreed-upon to be a blocking criterion, I will write up a test-case. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Call for testing: 32-bit AMD CPU owners

On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! > > We've found an issue in Fedora 23 Beta testing which seems to affect > AMD CPUs when booting the 32-bit images: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263762 > > unfortunately, so far all those who've tested

Re: Call for testing: 32-bit AMD CPU owners

On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 19:39 -0400, Fred Smith wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:11:47PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hi, folks! > > > > > > We've found an issue in Fedora 23 Beta testing w

Call for testing: 64-bit AMD CPU Users

Splitting this from the 32-bit thread so it doesn't get overlooked. Sorry for the double-post. One additional request: it's unclear right now (and we don't have available hardware to test) if there is also a failure happening on 64- bit AMD systems that are running on i686 Fedora. If someone

Re: after dnf update, Gnome SW utility still requests the same updates

On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 09:20 -0400, Joerg Lechner wrote: > Hi, > F23 Beta TC5 x86_64 Workstation. I did a dnf update, afterwards in > the same session, Gnome SW utility requests updates, I follow the > update procedure (reboot, update etc), the update fails, it says > "already installed". Is there

Re: samba 4.3

On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 06:12 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: My understanding is that Samba 4.3 is scheduled to ship Sept 8 and it has support for MIT Kerberos, meaning finally Fedora can do an AD. (or so say the people on the Samba list). Given this important added functionality, will

Re: F23 firewalld bug?

On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 08:50 -0400, Zach Villers wrote: firewalld is complaining some about certain objects being deprecated. Here is the output of firewalld --add-port=33533/tcp; http://ur1.ca/njt49 Lots of firewalld bugs reported, I think this is a new one for F23? Should I report or

Re: Alpha Criterion Discussion: Desktop Backgrounds

On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote: Auto Freeze Exeception seems too complicated an answer to this question. Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is desirable but not a blocking issue. That's fair. I was trying to offer an alternative to

Re: Alpha Criterion Discussion: Desktop Backgrounds

On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an actual case where people

Alpha Criterion Discussion: Desktop Backgrounds

As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion on the Alpha criterion that states: The default desktop background must be different from that of the two previous stable releases. As I understand it, the intent is essentially that no one booting a Fedora pre-release should

Re: conflict between latest fedora-release and systemd (rawhide)

On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:24 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:55:47 -0500 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:27:18 -0600, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:01:04 -0500 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:

Re: conflict between latest fedora-release and systemd (rawhide)

On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:38:31 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: It really *can't* be included in the same source RPM, because remixes wouldn't be able to ship the source, then. However, there's something

Re: F22 blocker/freeze exception review: on-list? in-bug? special meeting?

On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 16:36 -0600, Tim Flink wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015 15:11:00 -0700 Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote: snip So, I'd like to get sufficient votes on the proposed blockers and at least the significant proposed FEs as soon as possible. Would folks

Re: Beta blocker/FE update karma requests

On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 14:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Hi folks! As some of you know, part of the release validation process is to make sure the fixes for blocker and freeze exception bugs are tested and confirmed, and give karma to the updates so they can be pushed to stable. For

Re: [Testing Needed] rolekit-0.3.1-1.fc22

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 15:23 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 14:24 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rolekit-0.3.0-1.fc22 Defying even my own expectations, we've released rolekit 0.3.0 today with full multiple-instancing

Re: [Testing Needed] rolekit-0.3.0-1.fc22

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 14:24 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rolekit-0.3.0-1.fc22 Defying even my own expectations, we've released rolekit 0.3.0 today with full multiple-instancing support. I'd really like for this to end up in the Fedora 22 Beta

[Testing Needed] rolekit-0.3.0-1.fc22

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rolekit-0.3.0-1.fc22 Defying even my own expectations, we've released rolekit 0.3.0 today with full multiple-instancing support. I'd really like for this to end up in the Fedora 22 Beta which freezes on Tuesday morning, so if anyone who is willing can

Re: Silly bodhi karma games

On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 14:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: Can we please fix those people, who hate bodhi so much that they feel the need to submit updates with a low karma: 1 threshold? It just doesn't work and causes breakage too often. Broken dependencies and/or breakage at runtime.

SELinux Testing needed for Alpha Launch

We have an SELinux update in Bodhi[1] addressing an issue with SELinux denials on rolekit deployments of FreeIPA. As this is an important part of the Fedora Server, we'd very much appreciate if we could get some karma on this today so we can push it to stable for tomorrow's Alpha release.

Re: Convert nonproduct to productX

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 20:11 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote: Good question, let's kick it up to someone who can answer authoritatively

Re: Convert nonproduct to productX

On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote: On Feb 18, 2015 3:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote: In my personal, arguably pedantic opinion, this isn't something that

Re: Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch

On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 11:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: The definition of a Product is not, at present, 'has these and only exactly these packages installed', it's more 'has at least these packages installed'. It's all still being figured out, but it was considered reasonable to let

[IMPORTANT] Fedora 21 Schedule Change

== tl;dr Version == We are accelerating the Fedora 21 schedule so that we will enter Final Freeze one week earlier than previously described on the schedule page[1]. This means that all fixes intended for inclusion in the Fedora 21 release must be submitted for the stable repository no later

[Fwd: [Action Required] Fedora 21 Server Beta Validation]

Whoops, I forgot to CC the QA list on this. If you wish to volunteer for any part of this, PLEASE make sure that ser...@lists.fedoraproject.org is listed in the TO: or CC: lines, or we will probably miss it. ---BeginMessage--- As I assume everyone on this list knows by now, Beta was delayed by a

Re: Server release validation updates

On Oct 21, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Today I did some server validation testing - and, unfortunately, filed multiple blocker bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155301 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155304

Re: Beta TC4

On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 11:31 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote: Well, at least kickstart works. Also live-lxde works. However, Generic ... has the Fedora Project been renamed the Generic Project??? I am having a WTF moment! Both the kickstart install (using the workstation netinstall) and

Re: [Fwd: Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements]

On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 10:47 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 09:53 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:21 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote

Re: [Fwd: Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements]

On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 09:53 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:21 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This is somewhat hard to read as it doesn't diff against

Re: [Fwd: Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements]

On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:21 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This is somewhat hard to read as it doesn't diff against the previous text. A mail which just specified what you actually intend to change, or a sandbox wiki page

[Fwd: Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements]

---BeginMessage--- Today, we worked out how we will be handling upgrades from F20-F21. Please see below as a proposed edit to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria#Upgrade_requirements === span style=text-decoration:underlineUpgrade requirements/span === For each one

Re: Fedora.next QA planning: generic / Product-specific release criteria and blocker review issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/27/2014 09:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Hi, folks. So continuing with the theme of setting up the Fedora.next QA process, I thought before going too far with draft release criteria etc, we could discuss a couple of important points that

Re: Fedora.next QA planning: generic / Product-specific release criteria and blocker review issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/28/2014 10:11 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:11:16AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I'm of the opinion that we should keep the blocker process unified until and unless that becomes impossible. The only benefit I can

Seeking a candidate for the Server Working Group

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Server Working Group is a team focused on the development of a server-OS built from the Fedora Project. Recently, the chair held by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson was vacated. At today's Working Group meeting[1], we agreed that we would like to approach