Hi,<div><br></div><div>What Xen implementation is considered "supported" for FC16 DomU? I'm asking because on "Xen implementation" we were testing yesterday FC16 DomU installation failed compared to FC15 DomU success on the very same Dom0. Are failures like we've encountered candidates for bugreports?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is there a place (wikipage, bugzilla keyword, etc.) to collect Fedora 16 Xen issues?<br><br>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>m.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:38, Adam Williamson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:awilliam@redhat.com" target="_blank">awilliam@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:10 -0500, W. Michael Petullo wrote:<br>
> >> There are known bugs in FC15/FC16 that have been filled some time ago that<br>
> >> folks will sadly run into: 728775, 658387 and 668063<br>
> >><br>
> >> Fortunatly the bugs have patches attached and the files to be modified are shell scripts.<br>
><br>
> > Yep, links here:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728775" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728775</a><br>
><br>
> The Fedora update system reports this is fixed in grub2-1.99-6.fc16.<br>
><br>
> > <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658387" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658387</a><br>
><br>
> Peter Jones submitted a new grubby package yesterday. This seems to fix<br>
> bug #658387 (i.e., new-kernel-pkg creates a Dom0-style grub.cfg entry<br>
> if /etc/sysconfig/kernel contains "HYPERVISOR=/boot/xen.gz").<br>
><br>
> I have not yet tested this on Fedora 16. However, I did test on Fedora<br>
> 15. In this case, bug #668063 is still in effect. That is, grubby creates<br>
> most of a GRUB record, but the "module initramfs-..." entry is missing.<br>
><br>
> Has anyone yet tested this new grubby package on Fedora 16 yet? Does<br>
> using GRUB 2 makes #668063 irrelevant?<br>
><br>
> > <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668063" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668063</a><br>
><br>
> I just added some more description to this bug.<br>
<br>
</div>So, there's a meta-point here: we currently 'require' Beta releases to<br>
boot as guests on Xen hosts:<br>
<br>
"The release must boot successfully as a virtual guest in a situation<br>
where the virtual host is running a supported Xen implementation"<br>
<br>
I really don't have much knowledge of Xen and haven't followed this<br>
discussion closely, but do any currently-known bugs prevent this? If so,<br>
please flag them up so they can be considered as Beta blockers...thanks!<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Adam Williamson<br>
Fedora QA Community Monkey<br>
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | <a href="http://identi.ca" target="_blank">identi.ca</a>: adamwfedora<br>
<a href="http://www.happyassassin.net" target="_blank">http://www.happyassassin.net</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div><br>
--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>.....................................................................................................<br>Myroslav Opyr ▪ CTO ▪ Quintagroup ▪ <a href="http://quintagroup.com" target="_blank">http://quintagroup.com</a><br>
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙<br>
</div>