Fedora 21 Alpha validation test work
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks.
So, we're scheduled for Alpha TC1 tomorrow. We had a nice happy
co-operative plan where QA and the WGs would collaborate on revising the
release validation test process for Fedora.next...
...which, well, didn't really happen. As of this morning we were nowhere
near having a viable validation process. So I went for plan B: I spent
today more or less pulling the entire thing out of my ass.
It's a bit rough around the edges, but I think we more or less have
something workable now. I have skipped the draft stage for a lot of
documents just in the interest of having something vaguely workable in
time for TC1; of course, the pages can be revised as much as necessary
as we work with them.
It's a bit hard to remember everything I've done, but we now have a
draft Alpha Release Criteria page which should cover all
release-blocking media, which for now I'm assuming includes the
Workstation live media, Server minimal and offline install media, Cloud
and ARM disk images, and possibly some kind of generic network install
image. That draft is at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_F21_Alpha_criteria
and is based on the stuff from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_workstation_release_cr... and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Cloud_Alpha_Relea... , plus some adjustments to the templates that handle the preamble.
We have a new validation matrix, for Server product-specific tests:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Server_validation_results_template
The Desktop matrix has been adjusted to cover - not quite elegantly, but
at least cover - both the Workstation product and the KDE spin:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_results_template
The Base matrix has been extended to add a couple of new test cases that
came out of the Product criteria drafting process, but actually aren't
really product specific, and has had its columns adjusted to be
product-y:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_results_template
The installation matrix has similarly had a couple of new criteria
wedged in, but much more importantly, I ripped the netinst, DVD and live
image 'sanity test' sections and replaced them with an ARM-style table
where a single 'generic' test case is run against several images on
several platforms - that's the "Default boot and install" section, so
please cast an eye over it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_21_Install_Results_Template
and I made a small change to the release validation test event SOP to
list the server matrix as one to create:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Release_Validation_Test_Event
Here are links to all (I think) of the new test cases I had to write as
I went along:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_default_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kickstart_user_creation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_service_manipulation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_selinux
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Server_firewall_default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_kickstart_firewall
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Server_cockpit_default
The following test cases already existed, but are newly included in the
release validation process (they were written for test days):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_FreeIPA_realmd_join
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_realmd_join_kickstart
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_realmd_join_server
There are still quite a few i's to dot and t's to cross. There are some
release criteria and test cases that explicitly reference 'the DVD'
image that will need to be adjusted. We need to apply the 'associated
release criterion' template to all the new test cases, and probably
clean up some categorizations. Various other process documentation pages
may need to be updated, we'll have to check through all of them. But I
think now we at least have the broad strokes of what's needed for .next
validation testing.
All feedback on the above changes is of course welcome! Please do cast
your eye over and point out anything I missed, anything that looks
silly, any possible improvements and so on. Remember, though, this is
really *test process* design: we're not actually doing product design
here, if you think there are issues with the Fedora.next changes
themselves, that goes to the WGs or FESCo. As far as this work is
concerned, we're just trying to test the new Products as they're
designed (all of the above is based off of the Product PRDs and tech
specs).
I'll take time tomorrow to do some polishing, and of course look at any
and all feedback on the stuff I did today.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
8 years, 4 months
List of Qt/Qt5 packages for Fedora WS
by Lukáš Tinkl
Hi,
based on request of cschaller, I'm sending the proposed list of Qt/Qt5
packages to be included in Fedora Workstation:
qt
qt-x11
qt-settings
qt5-qtbase
qt5-qtimageformats
qt5-qtsvg
qt5-qtx11extras
qt5-qtxmlpatterns
qt5-qtdeclarative
qt5-qtquickcontrols
qt5-qtdoc
qt5-qtconnectivity
qt5-qtmultimedia
qt5-qtgraphicaleffects
(you can see the dep chain of qt5 packages here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KDE_updates)
--
Lukáš Tinkl <ltinkl(a)redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer - KDE desktop team, Brno
KDE developer <lukas(a)kde.org>
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
8 years, 9 months
Gnome 3.14 copr on F20
by Ankur Sinha
Hi,
I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to try out
the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there
seem to be some breakages:
dnf --refresh --best update gives me:
Error: nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by
gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. nothing provides
gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by
gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. package
NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none
of the providers can be installed. package
evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed
Omitting the --best flag doesn't work either. It wants to reinstall
evolution-data-server and errors out saying:
Error: Transaction check error:
package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already
installed
I was on the 3.12 copr already.
Thanks for putting up the new copr!
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
8 years, 9 months
Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work
by Chris Murphy
This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below.
I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide.
The WorkstationTechnical Spec says:
"One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework."
1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)?
1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken?
2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI?
3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable?
4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be?
The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful.
References:
"grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal"
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html
Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704
Thanks,
Chris Murphy
8 years, 9 months
BtrFS in Workstation features
by Matthew Garrett
Do we have any pending Workstation features that are preconditioned on
btrfs being usable? My understanding is that there's now nobody at Red
Hat working on the kernel code, so I'm a bit concerned that we could end
up in a situation where features are blocked indefinitely waiting for an
upstream with little interest in desktop functionality.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
8 years, 10 months
NetworkManager captive portal detection by default in Workstation
by Elad Alfassa
Hi.
I just realized we have a NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora
package. Installing this package will enable NetworkManager captive portal
detection by default, which allows improving user experience when
connecting to a captive portal.
We should install this by default on Workstation.
Any objections?
--
-Elad Alfassa.
8 years, 10 months
Re: New Fedora 22 Change Proposal: Fedora Atomic
by Chris Murphy
On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =)
>
> I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more
> appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal
> installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the
> clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server
> personally)
>
> I started a Change page here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server
>
> Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated.
Is the eventual idea that Fedora Atomic will be a separate product, or will it be a sub-product/variant of Server (or Server and Cloud) that merely differs in how it gets updated?
Where does this leave the Roller Derby project? Does it merge with Fedora Atomic, or does it go away, or does it leverage a dnf plug-in approach in contrast to an rpm-ostree approach?
Where does this leave Workstation? Its PRD lists a "Better upgrade/rollback control" requirement. And its tech spec says "gnome-software will use PackageKit with the hawkey backend". Since Server PRD and TC don't have an equivalent to this, it's curious that the one project explicitly intended to do what the Workstation PRD requires, is moving under the Server umbrella.
Chris Murphy
8 years, 10 months
Introduction, Documenting Workstation
by Pete Travis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm acquainted with many of you already, but an introduction seems
fitting anyway. I've been involved with the project for a few years now,
primarily on the Docs team but also some light packaging and lately
light infrastructure things. I live in Montana, US, where the population
density is almost as low as the temperature. I work for a small
government agency doing user and systems support.
Why should you care? Well, the Docs team reached a decision this last
weekend to proactively work with the Product WGs to assess documentation
needs. I volunteered to liaison with the Workstation team. As we
approach the release cycle, I'd like everyone to keep documentation in
mind and the discussion open about not only implementation, but how to
represent that implementation to the users. An undocumented feature
isn't featured :)
I'm looking forward to working with everyone, perhaps saying hello at
the next meeting - there are meetings, right? - and developing a
presentation of the Workstation Product that shows off the capabilities
and character of your work.
- --
- -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode
- immanetize(a)fedoraproject.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTNW1PAAoJEL1wZM0+jj2Zos4H/37WaPQMRumzi766cXv6x3mb
ADJuFmZ+mZwosTynurCAKG5p8PczOHKhRrZNslf9nFNx4dczc94QJFlO7hPOq3Mr
WOzkSn6pUXppukAd6UxX7qAjtrNomYCM8kDlmyK+ArZmVbo78O2IppeSwZk4R/tJ
ILnktcYl4sXJjlOrA28X5uiZ0dvreuZPBT+UsiDZHVvFBQfaYqjUKIioW/R4wQYp
FoFvLbXe2XCn609LuHl0TcEP9DIwd2ShKROqw2fhXXSPe4jWWwkm0+FktwEKAt46
DqKBpIZeeIIZfiKXRPS6CCGNOULboepDKj+7RfqmtrjUIqdPQZ4ZP+Hdr1vSC3M=
=G3EO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8 years, 10 months
Removing Bloat from the next Live CD (Desktop)
by quickbooks office
PS> I Posted this to the devel mailing list a while back and was told
to post here instead;
---------------
Removing Bloat from the next Live CD (Desktop) :
I have noticed alot of packages are included in the Live CD which are
not really used by users who only speak English.
I think it really makes sense to split the Live CD into 2 versions.
The default version will be for English only.
The second Live CD (not the default) will be English + international
languages support.
=============
Here are the packages which I believe can be removed without any
adverse effects:
ibus
ibus-chewing
ibus-gtk2
ibus-gtk3
ibus-hangul
ibus-kkc
ibus-libpinyin
ibus-m17n
ibus-rawcode
ibus-setup
ibus-wayland
libchewing
libpinyin
libpinyin-data
opencc
lohit-assamese-fonts
lohit-bengali-fonts
lohit-devanagari-fonts
lohit-gujarati-fonts
lohit-kannada-fonts
lohit-malayalam-fonts
lohit-oriya-fonts
lohit-punjabi-fonts
lohit-tamil-fonts
lohit-telugu-fonts
jomolhari-fonts
vlgothic-fonts
cjkuni-uming-fonts
wqy-zenhei-fonts
thai-scalable-fonts-common
thai-scalable-waree-fonts
smc-fonts-common
smc-meera-fonts
sil-abyssinica-fonts
sil-mingzat-fonts
sil-nuosu-fonts
sil-padauk-fonts
nhn-nanum-fonts-common
nhn-nanum-gothic-fonts
paratype-pt-sans-fonts
google-noto-sans-lisu-fonts
google-noto-sans-mandaic-fonts
google-noto-sans-meeteimayek-fonts
google-noto-sans-tagalog-fonts
google-noto-sans-tai-tham-fonts
google-noto-sans-tai-viet-fonts
khmeros-base-fonts
lklug-fonts
paktype-naqsh-fonts
tabish-eeyek-fonts
If you know a package I may have missed above please let me know.
Thanks.
8 years, 10 months
