NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair
This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary
drivers?
In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it
says:
"2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section
2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system
may be
copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any
way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If
it's a GPL
thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at
least give the option to the user?
Thanks,
--
David St.Clair
dstclair(a)cs.wcu.edu
1 year, 8 months
Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa
Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I
started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it
stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X
and run mouse-test, then restart.
Any ideas?
Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM
switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing
happens, the mouse goes crazy.
???
1 year, 8 months
Re: digikam and kipi-plugins?
by Rex Dieter
Per Bothner wrote:
> The Rawhide version of digikam is the very latest (0.10.0-rc1),
> but it fails to find any of the "Kipi plugins", even though I've
> installed the kipi-plugins package. This might be an upstream
> issue, since 0.10.0 is pretty bleeding edge and the kipi-plugins
> may even more bleeding-edge. Gwenview does seem to be see the
> plugins, so I'm wondering if there is there might be a
> Fedora-specific problem before I complain upstream ...
The f10 builds seem to work fine for me (finding the plugins), so perhaps
this is rawhide-specific?
To be clear, digikam's Settings -> configure digikam -> Kipi Plugins is
empty?
-- Rex
7 years, 10 months
Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel
Since the latest xorg-X11 upgrade I receive the already mentioned XKB
error and the mouse wheel is not working anymore.
Has anybody seen this behavior?
Regards
Chris
7 years, 10 months
Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero
Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
> >
> > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
> >
> > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
> > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
>
> You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
>
> Can you ping the server?
> What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername?
> Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms...
rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9
accesses that host just fine.
7 years, 10 months
QA group activities + goals discussion
by Adam Williamson
Hi, all. Just before I left the Raleigh office after my week for
orientation and getting to know the rest of the QA team, we had a
meeting to try and set some goals for Fedora QA for this year.
'We' is myself, James Laska, and Will Woods. In the spirit of community
that I am supposed to be bringing to the team, I wanted to throw these
topics open to the list to try and get your feedback on the same topics
we discussed.
Off the top, we should be honest and open: Red Hat pays Will, James and
now myself to work on Fedora QA full time. In my case, what RH want from
me is quite purely and simply to try and help the community - external
contributors - to improve the quality of Fedora as a project. In Will's
and James's cases, though, things are slightly different. Part of their
value is to produce tools and work on processes that, as well as
contributing to Fedora QA, also contribute to the process that
ultimately improves the quality of Red Hat's other products. In addition
to that, they're real engineers who know how to write stuff, and all
engineers like to come up with ideas and implement them. So, given that,
there are always going to be things that the internal QA guys are
working on that are decided by RH or by themselves. No matter how open
and community-friendly we are, it will never be the case that the work
and goals of those paid by RH are entirely determined by the
collaborative process.
However, bearing that in mind, it's still very valuable to RH, Fedora,
and the Fedora QA community to hopefully get all your opinions on these
issues, and it can certainly help to set my goals and help everyone
involved in this project think about what they're doing, what they'd
like to do, and how we can all work together towards the ultimate goal
of making Fedora an even better project.
So, to the topics! We set ourselves three simple questions
1. What does Fedora QA do?
2. What should it do?
3. What should it do first?
We'd like all of your input on these questions - just let us know what
you think. Broadly, we identified several things we - as a project - do:
* Exploratory testing: simply using Fedora, updates-testing, or Rawhide,
and complaining when stuff breaks. We agreed that this is at least as
important as anything else QA does, but sometimes isn't treated as such.
We agreed we should always emphasize that this is important and
valuable, try to help ensure it can be done as effectively as possible
(through things like the Bugzappers project), and try to always
communicate to everyone that simply doing this kind of testing is an
important and valued contribution to the QA project.
* Structured testing: this is the more in-depth testing we do, such as
regular testing of specific functions based on test plans, the use of
automated tools such as Beaker and Nitrate (once they're ready), and
test days. It also covers the case where another group contacts us with
a request to do specific testing on a certain function. A lot of
discussion here covered the Beaker and Nitrate projects; my take on
this, as a new guy, is that they sound like really great tools that will
help us a lot when they're ready.
* Bug zapping: all the great work done by the Bugzappers team, mainly
triaging and following up bugs to ensure they're properly handled from
report through to released update.
* Tooling: this is the work done, particularly by Will, to write the
tools that allow structured testing to take place. We agreed that it
would be good to get more contributions to this area, and that it's
important to communicate the tools we do / will have available so they
can be used to their full ability. This is important for things like
Bodhi - we'd like to make sure that kind of system is more widely used.
We also had discussions on things arising from the above, like the
importance of Rawhide, and meta-tasks like documentation and community
relations, which are important in attracting and enabling people to do
the actual tasks.
We also identified some specific goals. See also this Wiki page I
created: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Goals
1. Increase participation in Rawhide: it provides a huge benefit in
terms of identifying issues and having them fixed quickly and early in
the cycle.
I am going to work on communication and documentation issues around
that, and Will is going to work on producing a tool which simply tests,
every day, whether you can a) install Rawhide fresh and b) update from
latest stable+updates to Rawhide. This serves two purposes: it both lets
you know whether it's worth actually attempting to install Rawhide that
day if you wanted to know, and if we track the results over time, it
provides an incentive to the developers to improve the reliability of
Rawhide.
2. Make release testing more accessible
Encompasses many sub-tasks.
* defining what role QA serves in the release process
* defining what QA can do during the release process
* how can the community get involved?
* who tests what, when, and how?
This is what we're doing at present with the Wiki cleanup: the purpose
of this is to make it easier for people to get involved and know what we
do.
3. Strengthen the QA tools portfolio: aim to have Nitrate available in
prototype form by June, as we believe it will be really useful both in
improving the amount and quality of testing we're able to do, and
providing a fun and easy-to-use system that will get more people
involved with QA. There's also Beaker, which may take longer. This is
what wwoods is mainly working on.
So, what's your opinion on the above? Do you have anything to add to the
lists of what QA does, or should be doing? Do you feel there are any
specific problems stopping us performing at our full potential, that
should be solved as soon as possible? Do you have any ideas on making QA
more accessible and getting more people involved? Please let us know.
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
14 years, 4 months
Testing the Fedora 11 Installation Guide
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks!
Every release, the dedicated volunteers in the Documentation team
produce the Fedora Installation Guide, an exhaustive and detailed guide
to installing Fedora. For Fedora 11, they have asked us in the QA team
to co-ordinate 'testing' of the Installation Guide. By doing
installations following the instructions in the Installation Guide, we
can find issues in both the Guide and the installation process itself,
and thus improve both.
So, I have written up an installation guide 'Test Case' here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_installguide
As you can see, essentially what we'd like you to do is to take a look
at the Fedora 11 Installation Guide as it currently stands - it's at
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/install-guide/ - and try installing either
Fedora 11 Beta or current Rawhide according to the instructions found in
the Installation Guide. Report any problems you find - any bugs in the
installer itself, or errors or missing information or bits where what's
written in the guide doesn't correspond to what you see in the actual
installer - to Bugzilla.
As this is a wide-ranging case which doesn't involve any particular
component or developer, we aren't running a Test Day for this, but
instead would like it to be an ongoing process throughout the rest of
the Fedora 11 release cycle. Please, if you have the spare time and
resources, try and take part in this testing! Please discuss any
questions, problems or issues as a reply to this thread. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
14 years, 6 months
Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to developers
by Adam Williamson
Hi, guys. As discussed in this morning's meeting, I'm sending a draft of
a mail I propose to send to fedora-devel-list to ask for the opinions of
the developer group on what we should do about Bugzilla policies and
procedures. Does it look OK to everyone? Any suggestions to refine or
improve it? Thanks!
---------------------------------
Hi, -devel-list folks!
We in the Bugzappers team (part of the QA group) are working to revise
our Wiki space, and as part of that, various questions have arisen with
regards to Bugzilla procedures. A lot of the same issues have come up on
this list in the recent past.
In general, it seems like Fedora doesn't really have a properly defined
procedure for exactly how a bug should flow. Every maintainer, reporter
and triager has a slightly different idea of what each status or
resolution or keyword means, and when and by whom they should be
applied.
This is obviously confusing and problematic for any attempt to manage or
monitor Fedora bugs in a systematic way. We should have a consistent
procedure which works for reporters and developers and can be monitored
and managed by the Bugzappers group.
So, to arms!
General bug flow
----------------
This section covers things like "what do all the statuses mean" and
"what do all the resolutions mean" and "who changes what from what to
what, and when".
There is a very well-defined procedure for handling bugs in RHEL. The
first proposal is that we simply use the same procedure (and hence the
same statuses and resolutions) for Fedora. This has the advantage of
giving us a well-defined and tested process which some maintainers will
already be familiar with. The disadvantage of this is that the RHEL
process is probably in some ways over-engineered for Fedora: it uses
several stages managed by different teams which don't really exist so
far as Fedora is concerned, and relies on certain automatic steps which
aren't, AFAIK, actually automated for Fedora.
The second proposal would be to adopt some kind of simplified version of
the RHEL process, using a subset of the same statuses and resolutions,
usually to mean the same thing RHEL uses, with a less complex procedure
for getting all the way from file to fix.
The third proposal would be just to come up with a process for Fedora
from scratch, based probably on some kind of consensus around the
current practices used by various groups.
Specific issues
---------------
So, that's the overview. To get down to some specific issues, here's the
two big ones that have come up:
1) How to handle bugs that occur in multiple releases
There's no obvious One Good Fix for this one, because Bugzilla just
isn't designed to handle it. The two options most heavily discussed
within Bugzappers so far have been:
i) have reporters file separate bugs for each affected release that
someone cares about
ii) track all affected releases via one bug, using comments or keywords
Myself and Vincent Danen tried to come up with a flag-based system for
Mandriva to solve this problem once, but we couldn't really come up with
something that would work better than issue ii) above.
Personally I happen to prefer option i), but either can be made to work.
The most important thing is to pick one option or the other and apply it
consistently. This would mostly be the Bugzappers team's job, but
maintainers obviously have to know the policy chosen and work with it,
and Bugzappers don't want to try and just impose one choice or the
other, we want to know what would be most comfortable for maintainers.
2) What do we do with the Severity and Priority fields
At present these are pretty much roundly ignored by everyone (mostly on
the basis that they're initially set by reporters, who don't follow any
particular procedure, and so they don't convey any useful information).
I personally favour a policy whereby the Bugzappers group would set
these as a part of triage (their choices could be overridden later by
the package maintainer or RelEng). Severity should indicate the
importance of the issue *in the context of the package*, while Priority
indicates the importance of the issue *in the context of the
distribution as a whole*. So a crasher bug in a package only two people
in the world ever use may be High severity but Low priority, while say a
missing icon for Firefox might be Low severity but High priority. In my
experience, if these fields are consistently set by triagers according
to an agreed policy, they do convey valuable information to maintainers
and maintainers (and RelEng) find them useful.
Please, any feedback from active maintainers is most valuable - what I'm
trying to do here is find out what those who use Bugzilla at the sharp
end most need it to work like, to make their work most efficient. We in
Bugzappers see our mission as helping reporters to file useful reports
and maintainers to fix bugs as quickly and easily as possible, so we
want to set our policy based on what will work best for reporters and
maintainers.
Thanks!
----------------------------
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
14 years, 6 months
