Re: F24 karma requests (blocker/FE fixes)
Hey Adam,
For the Cloud bug, kushal built an image today and we verified this issue.
I don't know of anyone else who is going to build their own image to test this.
Is it possible for us to push to stable with the 1 karma?
Dusty
On 06/07/2016 11:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> Unfortunately we're still waiting on a fix for
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320273 before we can build
> a release candidate. While we're waiting, though, as well as doing the
> missing validation tests on the current nominated nightly, it'd be
> useful for folks to test and karma some FE / blocker updates:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b0494cdc04 (anaconda)
> fixes several FEs. If you aren't set up to build your own installer
> image, you can boot a live image and update the anaconda package before
> running the live installer - that's a decent way to test most aspects.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-714119426f (cloud-
> utils) fixes a blocker bug in the cloud images. I think you need to be
> able to build a Cloud image to be able to fully test the fix, which is
> why I'm CCing cloud@ :)
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7c55ce2fa (firefox)
> fixes an FE but also introduces quite a lot more change, so it'd be
> good to have it carefully tested; if everyone who uses firefox could
> update to it and check all their usual stuff works, that'd be great.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7e822d9239 (qt5)
> fixes a KDE crasher; it'd be great if KDE folks could update to it,
> make sure their stuff all still works normally, and +1 it if so.
>
> There's also a flock of FTBFS / dependency rebuild fixes:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a88e158b2c
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6166f85051
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7af5e90d1
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-54554f20d4
>
> for those all that's really needed is to verify that they have no
> dependency issues, and ideally that they start up and do...something
> (or if they're libraries, that something based on them starts up and
> works).
>
> Thanks a lot folks!
>