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
[Fedora QA] #228: SOPs for Everything
by fedora-badges
#228: SOPs for Everything
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17
Component: Wiki | Version:
Keywords: |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
We should have...SOPs for Everything!
This is a meta-ticket with the aim of identifying, well, everything QA
does, and making sure they all have SOPs. For a start, I'm going to do a
survey of the QA calendar for a release, and check whether we have an SOP
for each task.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/228>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
8 years, 8 months
[Fedora QA] #237: tests to verify that torrents and mirrors contain signed checksum files
by fedora-badges
#237: tests to verify that torrents and mirrors contain signed checksum files
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: robatino | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: Wiki | Version:
Keywords: |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
In many of the last several releases (11, 13, 14, and now 16), at least
some of the Alpha or Beta torrents contain only unsigned checksum files.
This would be easy to prevent by examining the .torrent files, which
contain file sizes (signing a checksum file adds about 1K to the size).
Unfortunately, at present these are not made available for testing prior
to being posted on http://torrent.fedoraproject.org , and when the problem
is pointed out, no matter how quickly, one is told that the torrent can't
be replaced since people are already downloading it. This makes it
important to catch the problem in advance.
Many (but not all) of the torrent files for the last several releases are
still available at http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/ and
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/spins/ , and can be examined for example
with gtorrentviewer. I have not checked any older than 11, and not all the
ones after that are available, so the above list of affected releases is
probably incomplete.
A less serious issue is when the checksum files get signed more than once.
For example, the checksum files for F15 Final install discs were signed
twice, first for the torrents and again for the mirrors - see
http://robatino.fedorapeople.org/checksums/15-Final/Fedora/ . The
checksums are identical, and both signatures are valid, but still, it
shouldn't happen.
Looking at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Engineering_Release_Tickets , it
says that for Alpha and Beta, the torrents should be staged before the
mirrors, but the reverse for Final. I've asked why on #fedora-releng but
gotten no response yet. It says nothing about signing the checksum files,
though the linked page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stage_final_release_for_mirrors (under the
section "Final") mentions it. This may explain why Alpha and Beta torrents
are much less likely to have signed files. If possible, it would be nice
for the order (torrents vs. mirrors) to be the same for all three, and in
any case, the checksum files should be signed once and then used for both
torrents and mirrors. None of this is currently documented.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/237>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
8 years, 8 months
[Fedora QA] #261: Revise upgrade test case set
by fedora-badges
#261: Revise upgrade test case set
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: adamwill | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17
Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version:
Keywords: |
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Our present upgrade test cases are probably a sub-optimal set. We exercise
various rarely-used choices - bootloader action, and text upgrade path -
but don't exercise more common variations, like installed package sets,
install media, and disk layouts. While we can't commit to supporting
absolutely any upgrade, we should cover at least some _more_ cases in
order to catch major fails.
Based on the experience in F16 and the recommendations in the
retrospective, I'd suggest we could consider dropping or downgrading the
importance of some tests, perhaps:
* QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader
* QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader_Text_Mode
* QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootloader_Text_Mode
and add test cases for all or some of the following scenarios (please add
any other suggestions as comments):
* upgrade from image written to USB stick (livecd-iso-to-disk)
* upgrade with KDE (and possibly Xfce and LXDE as 'optional' test cases)
* upgrade an EFI install (see also https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-
qa/ticket/256 for organizational issues here)
* upgrade with bootloader on first partition (not MBR)
* upgrade with separate /usr , /home and /var partitions
* upgrade a RAID install
This should be completed ideally by Fedora 17 Alpha phase, and definitely
by Beta phase (when upgrade issues become blockers).
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/261>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
8 years, 8 months
