Fedora 26-20170405.n.0 compose check report

2017-04-05 Thread Fedora compose checker 
Missing expected images:

Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64

Failed openQA tests: 6/110 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in 26-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76398   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76398
ID: 76461   Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76461
ID: 76494   Test: x86_64 universal install_xfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76494
ID: 76498   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76498
ID: 76509   Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76509

Old failures (same test failed in 26-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76446   Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76446
ID: 76460   Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76460
ID: 76688   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76688

Soft failed openQA tests: 10/18 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in 26-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76411   Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76411
ID: 76701   Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76701

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in 26-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76412   Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76412
ID: 76507   Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76507
ID: 76508   Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76508
ID: 76510   Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76510
ID: 76511   Test: i386 universal install_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76511
ID: 76512   Test: i386 universal install_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76512
ID: 76513   Test: i386 universal install_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76513
ID: 76514   Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76514

Passed openQA tests: 104/110 (x86_64), 7/18 (i386)

New passes (same test did not pass in 26-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76397   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76397
ID: 76399   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76399
ID: 76400   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76400
ID: 76401   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76401
ID: 76402   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76402
ID: 76455   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76455
ID: 76464   Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76464
ID: 76499   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76499
ID: 76502   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76502
ID: 76504   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76504
ID: 76515   Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76515
ID: 76516   Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76516
ID: 76680   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76680
ID: 76687   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76687
ID: 76693   Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76693
ID: 76695   Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76695
ID: 76698   Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76698
ID: 76705   Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76705
ID: 76706   Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76706

Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 130

Installed system changes in test i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default: 
System load changed from 0.12 to 0.29
Previous test data:

Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final

2017-04-05 Thread John Dulaney 
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299
> 
> and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking
> Alpha release on it didn't make sense.
> 
> The relevant criterion here is 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages
>  :
> 
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
> which cause the package to fail to install."
> 
> In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's
> not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't
> install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually
> built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'.
> 
> At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with
> many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI
> allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on
> the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency
> issues, the install would fail with an error.
> 
> Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image,
> only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server-
> related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select
> optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option
> groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default'
> packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a
> selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed
> with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted.
> 
> Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to
> Final.
> 
> For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It
> turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it
> back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or
> being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But
> it's not entirely straightforward.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to
> follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would
> be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's
> enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should
> make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD
> install OK for Final.
> 
> Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks!

I am +1.

John.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Rawhide-20170405.n.0 compose check report

2017-04-05 Thread Fedora compose checker 
Missing expected images:

Xfce raw-xz armhfp

Failed openQA tests: 21/107 (x86_64), 5/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76165   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76165
ID: 76180   Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76180
ID: 76181   Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76181
ID: 76213   Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76213
ID: 76261   Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76261
ID: 76277   Test: i386 universal install_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76277

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76194   Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76194
ID: 76197   Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76197
ID: 76201   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76201
ID: 76202   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76202
ID: 76210   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76210
ID: 76212   Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76212
ID: 76220   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76220
ID: 76221   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76221
ID: 76225   Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76225
ID: 76226   Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76226
ID: 76227   Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76227
ID: 76229   Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_configured
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76229
ID: 76241   Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76241
ID: 76252   Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76252
ID: 76253   Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76253
ID: 76267   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76267
ID: 76270   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76270
ID: 76276   Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76276
ID: 76282   Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76282
ID: 76283   Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76283
ID: 76583   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76583

Soft failed openQA tests: 2/107 (x86_64), 8/18 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in Rawhide-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76157   Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76157
ID: 76158   Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76158

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Rawhide-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76178   Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76178
ID: 76179   Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76179
ID: 76273   Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76273
ID: 76274   Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76274
ID: 76275   Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76275
ID: 76278   Test: i386 universal install_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76278
ID: 76279   Test: i386 universal install_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76279
ID: 76280   Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76280

Passed openQA tests: 72/107 (x86_64), 5/18 (i386)

New passes (same test did not pass in Rawhide-20170403.n.0):

ID: 76169   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/76169
ID: 76170   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso

Validation proposal: separate out artwork / release identification checks to their own test case

2017-04-05 Thread Adam Williamson 
Hi folks! Time for another proposal :)

We currently kinda bundle the checks for correct artwork and 'release
identification' (stuff that identifies the release, like 'Welcome to
Fedora 26!' etc.) into two test cases that also include functionality
testing:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_startup
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_initial_setup

This is a bit awkward, and also is a bit of a problem for automation.
We could actually automate the functional parts of those tests in
openQA (I've just finished adding openQA tests that install without a
user account and check gnome-initial-setup and initial-setup work OK),
but we can't really automate the 'release identification' / artwork
checks. So we can't have openQA report wiki passes for these tests, so
long as they're combined like this.

So I'm proposing we separate out a new 'artwork and release
identification' test case. I've written a draft of it:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Testcase_artwork_release_identification

We would remove the relevant bits from the other two test cases.

I'm a bit in two minds about what to do with the matrices. I'm thinking
we could either add this test case to the Server, Cloud and Desktop
pages, or we could put it in the Base page (as the current tests are).
Looking at this, it occurs to me that not just these checks but most of
the other Base tests would actually be relevant to things beyond the
'environments' currently in the Base page (Workstation, Server, KDE,
ARM and Cloud). I'm thinking perhaps we could rejig the page a bit, and
add another table with non-blocking columns for other desktops and
stuff.

Thoughts? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora 26 updates-testing report

2017-04-05 Thread updates 
The following Fedora 26 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  20  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8e4c14eeec   
php-onelogin-php-saml-2.10.5-1.fc26
  11  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-68bd2a916e   
python-sleekxmpp-1.3.2-1.fc26
   3  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-49f828d4b1   
chromium-57.0.2987.133-1.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fc634e7ee7   
xorgxrdp-0.2.1-1.fc26 xrdp-0.9.2-3.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0c4f5fb08e   
php-horde-Horde-Crypt-2.7.6-1.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1d305fa070   
libpng12-1.2.57-1.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d0066d567   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc26


The following Fedora 26 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
 Age URL
  17  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d0d830d7d2   
iproute-4.10.0-2.fc26
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-90bcb067bf   
fedora-release-26-0.6
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c4724db5f1   
firefox-52.0.2-2.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e864afc55e   
firewalld-0.4.4.4-1.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-62dafa726c   
pcre2-10.23-5.fc26
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d5cf2477ac   
clutter-gst3-3.0.24-1.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-219737d480   
ibus-1.5.15-6.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4e97ed308   
flatpak-0.9.2-1.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8e97b5fc2f   
file-5.30-6.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d0066d567   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc26
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-24a8e7b9a5   
kernel-4.11.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc26


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 26 updates-testing

BackupPC-4.1.1-1.fc26
a52dec-0.7.4-27.fc26
aide-0.16-2.fc26
apache-logging-parent-1-1.fc26
caja-1.18.1-1.fc26
cassandra-3.9-8.fc26
chkrootkit-0.52-1.fc26
copyq-3.0.0-1.fc26
dblatex-0.3.10-1.fc26
fawkes-1.0.1-2.fc26
file-5.30-6.fc26
flatpak-0.9.2-1.fc26
gazebo-8.0.0-1.fc26
golang-github-cznic-fileutil-0-0.2.git90cf820.fc26
golang-github-cznic-sortutil-0-0.1.git4c73428.fc26
golang-github-cznic-strutil-0-0.1.git43a8959.fc26
ibus-1.5.15-6.fc26
ignition-msgs-0.7.0-3.fc26
ignition-transport-3.0.1-2.fc26
iprutils-2.4.14.1-1.fc26
jetty-9.4.3-2.v20170317.fc26
kernel-4.11.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc26
librtas-2.0.1-1.fc26
libvirt-3.2.0-1.fc26
libvirt-python-3.2.0-1.fc26
mate-desktop-1.18.0-2.fc26
mate-utils-1.18.1-1.fc26
mc-4.8.19-1.fc26
mingw-libvirt-3.2.0-1.fc26
mingw-qt5-qtbase-5.7.1-3.fc26
molequeue-0.8.0-2.20161222giteb397e.fc26
perl-B-Hooks-Parser-0.19-1.fc26
perl-LWP-UserAgent-DNS-Hosts-0.11-3.fc26
perl-MCE-1.827-1.fc26
perl-MCE-Shared-1.823-1.fc26
perl-Module-Install-1.18-1.fc26
perl-Module-Signature-0.81-3.fc26
perl-Parse-RecDescent-1.967015-1.fc26
perl-Sys-Virt-3.2.0-1.fc26
perl-Test-Assert-0.0504-18.fc26
php-pecl-zip-1.14.0-1.fc26
php-symfony-2.8.19-1.fc26
pkgconf-1.3.5-1.fc26
player-3.0.2-59.fc26
pluma-1.18.1-1.fc26
python-dbfread-2.0.7-3.git300b2d7.fc26
python-hglib-2.4-1.fc26
python-matplotlib-2.0.0-2.fc26.2
python-networkmanager-2.0.1-1.fc26
python-pillow-4.1.0-1.fc26
python-streamlink-0.5.0-1.fc26
qemu-2.9.0-0.1.rc3.fc26
rpmconf-1.0.19-1.fc26
rsync-bpc-3.0.9.6-1.fc26
rubygem-acts_as_list-0.9.5-1.fc26
shogun-data-0.12-0.2.git20170322.c877521.fc26
smuxi-1.0.6-7.fc26
snapd-2.23.6-4.fc26
snapd-glib-1.10-1.fc26
spacefm-1.0.5-4.fc26
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc26
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+17.04.20170403-1.fc26
xonotic-0.8.2-1.fc26
xonotic-data-0.8.2-1.fc26
xonsh-0.5.9-1.fc26
zathura-pdf-mupdf-0.3.1-1.fc26
zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.7-1.fc26

Details about builds:



 BackupPC-4.1.1-1.fc26 (FEDORA-2017-371e2e3266)
 High-performance backup system

Update Information:

* Merged pull requests: #77, #78, #79, #82  * Added missing
BackupPC_migrateV3toV4 to makeDist (issue #75) reported   by spikebike.  * Fixed
divide-by-zero in progress % report in BackupPC_migrateV3toV4   (issue #75)
reported by spikebike.  * In lib/BackupPC/Lib.pm, if Socket::getaddrinfo()
doesn't exist (ie,   an old version of Socket.pm), then default to ipv4 ping.  *
Updates to configure.pl to make config-path default be based on   config-dir
(#79), prepended config-path with dest-dir, fixing a   config.pl merge bug
affecting $Conf{PingPath} reported by Richard Shaw,   and a few other fixes.  *
Updated

Fedora 25 updates-testing report

2017-04-05 Thread updates 
The following Fedora 25 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  99  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d79ba708cb   
exim-4.87.1-1.fc25
  19  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-06f4b88ceb   
php-onelogin-php-saml-2.10.5-1.fc25
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-99ad80f109   
python-sleekxmpp-1.3.2-1.fc25
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-674d306f51   
icecat-52.0.1-5.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7bd002b77c   
xorgxrdp-0.2.1-1.fc25 xrdp-0.9.2-3.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ed4c9b605b   
php-horde-Horde-Crypt-2.7.6-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf1944f480   
libpng15-1.5.28-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bad9942e42   
libpng12-1.2.57-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-51979161f4   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc25


The following Fedora 25 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
 Age URL
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ea86a8123b   
pungi-4.1.14-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a11057f70e   
ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-85b7d7129b   
flatpak-0.9.2-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a40dca1e21   
gtk3-3.22.11-1.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5a6a02391d   
file-5.29-4.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b1b8a7c469   
git-2.9.3-3.fc25
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-51979161f4   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc25


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 25 updates-testing

a52dec-0.7.4-27.fc25
aide-0.16-2.fc25
ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc25
chkrootkit-0.52-1.fc25
file-5.29-4.fc25
flatpak-0.9.2-1.fc25
gegl03-0.3.14-1.fc25
git-2.9.3-3.fc25
golang-github-cznic-fileutil-0-0.2.git90cf820.fc25
golang-github-cznic-sortutil-0-0.1.git4c73428.fc25
golang-github-cznic-strutil-0-0.1.git43a8959.fc25
gtk3-3.22.11-1.fc25
guacamole-server-0.9.12-1.fc25
mc-4.8.19-1.fc25
molequeue-0.8.0-2.20161222giteb397e.fc25
perl-LWP-UserAgent-DNS-Hosts-0.11-3.fc25
pkgconf-1.3.5-1.fc25
python-dbfread-2.0.7-3.git300b2d7.fc25
python-hglib-2.4-1.fc25
python-msrest-0.4.7-1.fc25
python-streamlink-0.5.0-1.fc25
rpmconf-1.0.19-1.fc25
snapd-2.23.6-4.fc25
snapd-glib-1.10-1.fc25
spacefm-1.0.5-4.fc25
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc25
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+17.04.20170403-1.fc25
xonotic-0.8.2-1.fc25
xonotic-data-0.8.2-1.fc25
zathura-pdf-mupdf-0.3.1-1.fc25
zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.7-1.fc25

Details about builds:



 a52dec-0.7.4-27.fc25 (FEDORA-2017-6b4678f51e)
 Small test program for liba52

Update Information:

Fix upgrade path for 3rd part repos using a52dec-libs instead of liba52




 aide-0.16-2.fc25 (FEDORA-2017-5162abbf03)
 Intrusion detection environment

Update Information:

fixed upstream link

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1421355 - aide contrib directory is not readable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421355
  [ 2 ] Bug #1421351 - /sbin/aide is not readable by non root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421351




 ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc25 (FEDORA-2017-a11057f70e)
 The Mozilla CA root certificate bundle

Update Information:

This update supports a new PKCS#11 attribute CKA_NSS_MOZILLA_CA_POLICY. The
attribute has been defined by NSS version 3.30. The attribute is expected to be
set to true for CA certificates that have been added as part of the Mozilla CA
Policy process.  The enhancement is required for compatibility with the future
Firefox 54 release, which will query this attribute when accessing root CA
certificates from the loaded CA trust module. On Fedora, Firefox is configured
to access the p11-kit-trust module, instead of the NSS CA trust module nssckbi.
This change to the ca-certificates package will make the attribute available to
p11-kit-trust and Firefox.  Support for this new attribute requires p11-kit-
trust version and build 0.23.2-3, which contains the relevant backported
functionality from

Fedora 24 updates-testing report

2017-04-05 Thread updates 
The following Fedora 24 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 106  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-26f9817b08   
squid-3.5.23-1.fc24
  99  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eaaa9c4a08   
exim-4.87.1-1.fc24
  61  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ece16ba6ba   
runc-1.0.0-5.rc2.gitc91b5be.fc24
  42  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4b176c1694   
redis-3.2.8-1.fc24
  19  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-68cdc567e9   
php-onelogin-php-saml-2.10.5-1.fc24
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0f5fe1913f   
sane-backends-1.0.25-7.fc24
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-72323a442f   
ntp-4.2.6p5-44.fc24
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-97e65f13bb   
python-sleekxmpp-1.3.2-1.fc24
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e6419b416d   
xen-4.6.5-4.fc24
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-712a186f5f   
icecat-52.0.1-5.fc24
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-461ce095b5   
samba-4.4.13-0.fc24
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ec01954fe9   
chromium-57.0.2987.133-1.fc24
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-174cb400d7   
flatpak-0.8.5-1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8eac23007d   
xorgxrdp-0.2.1-1.fc24 xrdp-0.9.2-3.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e2a3e6fa12   
php-horde-Horde-Crypt-2.7.6-1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-66fd940572   
libpng15-1.5.28-1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-84bc8ac268   
libpng12-1.2.57-1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a66ca10c22   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc24


The following Fedora 24 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
 Age URL
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3d7c3f66ae   
pcre-8.40-6.fc24
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-47eb254e1c   
vim-8.0.514-1.fc24
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-58d5521965   
linux-firmware-20170313-72.git695f2d6d.fc24
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6189eb6f22   
gvfs-1.28.4-1.fc24
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e50ea71b16   
audit-2.7.4-1.fc24
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-461ce095b5   
samba-4.4.13-0.fc24
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-579411a8a3   
nss-3.29.3-1.1.fc24 nss-util-3.29.3-1.1.fc24
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c372fa4dbc   
sudo-1.8.19p2-1.fc24
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3e90bdded7   
p11-kit-0.23.2-3.fc24
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1739c0ed1b   
hwdata-0.299-1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3753e75f72   
ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a66ca10c22   
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc24
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-85f5f525f1   
firefox-52.0.2-2.fc24


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 24 updates-testing

a52dec-0.7.4-27.fc24
ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc24
chkrootkit-0.52-1.fc24
golang-github-cznic-fileutil-0-0.2.git90cf820.fc24
golang-github-cznic-sortutil-0-0.1.git4c73428.fc24
golang-github-cznic-strutil-0-0.1.git43a8959.fc24
mc-4.8.19-1.fc24
pkgconf-1.3.5-1.fc24
python-hglib-2.4-1.fc24
python-streamlink-0.5.0-1.fc24
snapd-2.23.6-3.fc24
snapd-glib-1.10-1.fc24
spacefm-1.0.5-4.fc24
tigervnc-1.7.1-3.fc24
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+17.04.20170403-1.fc24

Details about builds:



 a52dec-0.7.4-27.fc24 (FEDORA-2017-fec43917b0)
 Small test program for liba52

Update Information:

Fix upgrade path for 3rd part repos using a52dec-libs instead of liba52  
Fix multilibs transition




 ca-certificates-2017.2.11-1.1.fc24 (FEDORA-2017-3753e75f72)
 The Mozilla CA root certificate bundle

Update Information:

This update supports a new PKCS#11 attribute CKA_NSS_MOZILLA_CA_POLICY. The
attribute has been defined by NSS version 3.30. The attribute is expected to be
set to true for CA certificates that have been added as part of the Mozilla CA
Policy process.  The enhancement is required for compatibility with the future
Firefox 54 release, which will query this attribute when accessing root CA
certificates from the loaded CA trust module. On Fedora, Firefox is configured
to access the p11-kit-trust

Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final

2017-04-05 Thread Sumantro Mukherjee 


- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:47:27 PM
> Subject: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final
> 
> So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299
> 
> and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking
> Alpha release on it didn't make sense.
> 
> The relevant criterion here is
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages
> :
> 
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
> which cause the package to fail to install."
> 
> In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's
> not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't
> install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually
> built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'.
> 
> At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with
> many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI
> allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on
> the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency
> issues, the install would fail with an error.
> 
> Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image,
> only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server-
> related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select
> optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option
> groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default'
> packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a
> selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed
> with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted.
> 
> Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to
> Final.
> 
> For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It
> turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it
> back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or
> being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But
> it's not entirely straightforward.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to
> follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would
> be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's
> enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should
> make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD
> install OK for Final.
> 
> Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks!
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 


I too concur with Roshi and +1 this to be moved to final

Thanks
Sumantro
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final

2017-04-05 Thread Mike Ruckman 
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299
> 
> and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking
> Alpha release on it didn't make sense.
> 
> The relevant criterion here is 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages
>  :
> 
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
> which cause the package to fail to install."
> 
> In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's
> not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't
> install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually
> built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'.
> 
> At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with
> many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI
> allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on
> the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency
> issues, the install would fail with an error.
> 
> Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image,
> only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server-
> related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select
> optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option
> groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default'
> packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a
> selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed
> with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted.
> 
> Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to
> Final.
> 
> For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It
> turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it
> back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or
> being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But
> it's not entirely straightforward.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to
> follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would
> be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's
> enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should
> make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD
> install OK for Final.
> 
> Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks!
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net

I'm +1 to the movement to Final.

// Mike
--
Fedora QA
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Introduction

2017-04-05 Thread Sumantro Mukherjee 


- Original Message -
> From: "Dirk Gottschalk" 
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:01:56 PM
> Subject: Introduction
> 
> Hi,
> 
> my name ist Dirk, I'm 36 years old from Aachen, Gernamy.
> 
> I'm a software developer, system and network administrator and I use
> Fedora since it's first release.
> 
> Release 25 was the first release which brought me in trouble after
> upgrading from Fedora 24. I could fix all issues, so everything is
> okay. That is the reason for my decision to test the new release before
> something goes wrong and I want to share my results of this tests whith
> you, so that it could be possible to solve eventually appearing
> problems before the new release becomes final.
> 
> If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
> 
> Regards,
> Dirk
> 
> --
> Dirk Gottschalk, Aachen
> Tel.: 01573 / 1152350
> eMail: dirk.gottschalk1...@googlemail.com
> 
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

Hey Dirk,

First of all, Welcome and thanks for showing your interest in Fedora QA. I've 
sponsored it now.  :)


You can start off by testing updates in [http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/] for 
Fedora 24 , Fedora 25 and Fedora 26.  Update testing is where a tester tests a 
package and gives out a +1 Karma for PASS and -1 Karma for FAIL. You can go to 
bodhi.fedoraproject.org where you can sort the packages with Fedora Releases 
and tags viz "pending" & "testing" . You can read much about update testing 
here [1]. You can also, use fedora-easy-karma for giving out feedbacks.


you can start with  Release Validation testing. In Release Validation all you 
need to do is to check the nightly/TC/RC against certain criteria. For example, 
let's take the latest alpha (Fedora 26 Alpha 1.7), you can run test cases which 
are mentioned [2] and submit your results in the test matrix.

Note that each of the test cases[3] will have "How to test" section which will 
have the steps (to be executed sequentially) and if the results match with the 
expected results you can mark it as pass by editing the wiki page 
{{result|PASS|}} . Always make sure to check for "Associated 
release criterion" which can be found on the top of test case page , if your 
test case fails you can mark it fail by editing the wiki page 
{{result|FAIL|}} and file a bug at RHBZ [4] under Fedora.


 You can always find the ‘current’ validation pages using these addresses:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Cloud_Test

There is a three part series in Fedora community blog which can help you 
starting some of the validation testing and update testing. We also have a test 
day coming up on 6th. You can read up 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2017-04-06_AnacondaBlivetGUI for more 
info.

[1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
[2]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.7_Summary
[3]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_USB_stick_Live_luc
[4]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

Thanks
Sumantrom
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final

2017-04-05 Thread Adam Williamson 
So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299

and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking
Alpha release on it didn't make sense.

The relevant criterion here is 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages
 :

"There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
which cause the package to fail to install."

In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's
not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't
install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually
built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'.

At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with
many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI
allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on
the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency
issues, the install would fail with an error.

Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image,
only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server-
related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select
optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option
groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default'
packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a
selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed
with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted.

Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to
Final.

For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It
turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it
back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or
being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But
it's not entirely straightforward.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to
follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would
be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's
enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should
make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD
install OK for Final.

Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Updating to F26 using dnf system-upgrade - conflicts

2017-04-05 Thread Ankur Sinha 
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 10:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> No, that's wrong. An nss update which several other packages had
> already rebuilt again was unpushed a couple of days ago, which caused
> many dependency issues like this. It's since been re-pushed, and when
> the nightly compose that just completed (20170405.n.0) syncs out to
> mirrors the problem should be resolved.

Ah - thanks, Adam! I'll wait a bit, retry it and report back.
-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Criteria proposal: virt guest at Alpha

2017-04-05 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 17:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi folks!
> 
> At the Go/No-Go meeting today, we agreed in principle that major bugs
> in virt guest functionality should come under the Alpha criteria, not
> the Beta criteria as before. When we established the virt criteria, use
> of virtual machines for pre-release testing wasn't as widespread as it
> is now.
> 
> Having looked at the criteria, I think a simple change can achieve
> this. We simply move this single criterion from Beta to Alpha:
> 
> "The release must install and boot successfully as a virtual guest in a
> situation where the virtual host is running the current stable Fedora
> release."
> 
> The other criterion would remain at Beta:
> 
> "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same
> release."
> 
> I believe just this change should suffice to implement the intent: that
> virt guest functionality block Alpha, but virt host functionality block
> Beta.
> 
> Does this sound good to everyone? Thanks!

As the response to this was positive, I'm implementing it now. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Updating to F26 using dnf system-upgrade - conflicts

2017-04-05 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 07:17 -0700, stan wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:03:51 +0100
> Ankur Sinha <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I was looking to upgrade my machine to F26 using dnf system-upgrade. I
> > got a conflict or two and was wondering if this is a known issue and
> > whether it is OK to proceed?
> > 
> > > > [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk  ~]$ sudo dnf system-upgrade
> > > > download
> > > > --releasever=26 
> > > > 
> > > >      
> > > 
> > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates',
> > > disabling. Failed to synchronize cache for repo
> > > 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling. Last metadata expiration
> > > check: 0:00:18 ago on Wed Apr  5 11:59:31 2017. Error: nothing
> > > provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64. nothing
> > > provides nss >= 3.29.3 needed by firefox-52.0-7.fc26.x86_64.
> > > problem with installed package lz4-1.7.5-1.fc25.i686. nothing
> > > provides nss(x86-32) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.i686. nothing
> > > provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64 (try to
> > > add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
> > > packages) 
> 
> My interpretation of that output is that package lz4-1.7.5-1.fc25.i686
> is blocking the update.  It somehow creates a dependency chain that
> doesn't allow nss to update, and so the rest follows.
> 
> You could try removing that package, and then running the
> system-upgrade again.  Reinstall it after the system-upgrade completes
> if it is still available in F26.

No, that's wrong. An nss update which several other packages had
already rebuilt again was unpushed a couple of days ago, which caused
many dependency issues like this. It's since been re-pushed, and when
the nightly compose that just completed (20170405.n.0) syncs out to
mirrors the problem should be resolved.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Introduction

2017-04-05 Thread Dirk Gottschalk 
Hi,

my name ist Dirk, I'm 36 years old from Aachen, Gernamy.

I'm a software developer, system and network administrator and I use
Fedora since it's first release.

Release 25 was the first release which brought me in trouble after
upgrading from Fedora 24. I could fix all issues, so everything is
okay. That is the reason for my decision to test the new release before
something goes wrong and I want to share my results of this tests whith
you, so that it could be possible to solve eventually appearing
problems before the new release becomes final.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Regards,
Dirk

-- 
Dirk Gottschalk, Aachen
Tel.: 01573 / 1152350
eMail: dirk.gottschalk1...@googlemail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Updating to F26 using dnf system-upgrade - conflicts

2017-04-05 Thread stan 
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:03:51 +0100
Ankur Sinha  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I was looking to upgrade my machine to F26 using dnf system-upgrade. I
> got a conflict or two and was wondering if this is a known issue and
> whether it is OK to proceed?
> 
> > > [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk  ~]$ sudo dnf system-upgrade
> > > download
> > > --releasever=26   
> > >   
> > >      
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates',
> > disabling. Failed to synchronize cache for repo
> > 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling. Last metadata expiration
> > check: 0:00:18 ago on Wed Apr  5 11:59:31 2017. Error: nothing
> > provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64. nothing
> > provides nss >= 3.29.3 needed by firefox-52.0-7.fc26.x86_64.
> > problem with installed package lz4-1.7.5-1.fc25.i686. nothing
> > provides nss(x86-32) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.i686. nothing
> > provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by
> > java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64 (try to
> > add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
> > packages) 

My interpretation of that output is that package lz4-1.7.5-1.fc25.i686
is blocking the update.  It somehow creates a dependency chain that
doesn't allow nss to update, and so the rest follows.

You could try removing that package, and then running the
system-upgrade again.  Reinstall it after the system-upgrade completes
if it is still available in F26.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Updating to F26 using dnf system-upgrade - conflicts

2017-04-05 Thread Ankur Sinha 
Hello,

I was looking to upgrade my machine to F26 using dnf system-upgrade. I
got a conflict or two and was wondering if this is a known issue and
whether it is OK to proceed?

> > [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk  ~]$ sudo dnf system-upgrade download 
> > --releasever=26 
> > 
> >    
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:18 ago on Wed Apr  5 11:59:31 2017.
> Error: nothing provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by 
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64.
> nothing provides nss >= 3.29.3 needed by firefox-52.0-7.fc26.x86_64.
> problem with installed package lz4-1.7.5-1.fc25.i686.
> nothing provides nss(x86-32) >= 3.29.3 needed by 
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.i686.
> nothing provides nss(x86-64) >= 3.29.3 needed by 
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1:1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc26.x86_64
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Introduction: Cameron Connell

2017-04-05 Thread Sumantro Mukherjee 


- Original Message -
> From: "Cameron Connell" 
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 3:18:52 AM
> Subject: Introduction: Cameron Connell
> 
> Hello!
> I am a High School junior in MA with an interest in linux ever since owning a
> chromebook in 2013, and ever since I have been distro-hopping on my Thinkpad
> and experimenting with my server.
> For years my goal has been to do something more than just mess around in
> Linux and actually contribute to a distro or software, and the test
> community seems to be a great place to do this.
> I mainly use Fedora now, with months spent on Antergos and Arch and my humble
> beginning with Ubuntu and a few days experimenting with Gentoo.
> 
> I look forward to contribute in anyway I can and can be reached at any time
> Thanks
> - Cameron
> 
> Also, I am yet to be approved to the group via the website, is there a step I
> am missing or is it just a process that takes a few days?
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

Hey Cameron,

First of all, Welcome and thanks for showing your interest in Fedora QA. 
we sponsor the  membership to Fedora QA group once we get the introduction 
email. I've sponsored it now.  :)


You can start off by testing updates in [http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/] for 
Fedora 24 , Fedora 25 and Fedora 26.  Update testing is where a tester tests a 
package and gives out a +1 Karma for PASS and -1 Karma for FAIL. You can go to 
bodhi.fedoraproject.org where you can sort the packages with Fedora Releases 
and tags viz "pending" & "testing" . You can read much about update testing 
here [1]. You can also, use fedora-easy-karma for giving out feedbacks.


you can start with  Release Validation testing. In Release Validation all you 
need to do is to check the nightly/TC/RC against certain criteria. For example, 
let's take the latest alpha (Fedora 26 Alpha 1.7), you can run test cases which 
are mentioned [2] and submit your results in the test matrix.

Note that each of the test cases[3] will have "How to test" section which will 
have the steps (to be executed sequentially) and if the results match with the 
expected results you can mark it as pass by editing the wiki page 
{{result|PASS|}} . Always make sure to check for "Associated 
release criterion" which can be found on the top of test case page , if your 
test case fails you can mark it fail by editing the wiki page 
{{result|FAIL|}} and file a bug at RHBZ [4] under Fedora.


 You can always find the ‘current’ validation pages using these addresses:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Cloud_Test

There is a three part series in Fedora community blog which can help you 
starting some of the validation testing and update testing. We also have a test 
day coming up on 6th. You can read up 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2017-04-06_AnacondaBlivetGUI for more 
info.

[1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
[2]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.7_Summary
[3]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_USB_stick_Live_luc
[4]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

Thanks
Sumantrom
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org