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, 10 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, 10 months
[Fedora QA] #472: create testcase for resizing in custom partitioning
by fedora-badges
#472: create testcase for resizing in custom partitioning
------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 22
Component: Test cases | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
------------------------+------------------------
After discovering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221247 it
seems reasonable we should test this more properly in the future.
Currently we seem to have no test case about resizing partitions in manual
part dialog. We probably should, and test it against at least a standard
partition and a logical volume. Optionally, we can split standard
partitions into ext4 and ntfs, to cover similar use cases as in our
QA:Testcase_partitioning_guided_shrink .
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/472>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
7 years, 3 months
Fedora 24: i686 images no longer 'release blocking'
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks! As discussed at last week's meeting, it seemed a good idea
to flag this up on the list for anyone who missed it.
From Fedora 24 onwards, FESCo has decided that i686 (32-bit x86) images
are no longer 'release blocking', by policy:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1469
I have tweaked the release criteria 'preamble' text slightly to mention
this explicitly, and also to link to the canonical list of release-
blocking images that the program manager is maintaining now (the F24
list is
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/... ).
I noted that the question of whether we 'support' / block on 32-bit
*upgrades* is not yet resolved, so I've filed a FESCo ticket for that:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1539
What this means to us is pretty simple: we no longer have to worry
about getting all the validation tests done for 32-bit images. Woot! We
still *can* test them, if we want, but we don't have to. They're just
like the LXDE live, or any other non-blocking image.
An outstanding question is what we do with the validation matrices.
Cloud was easy enough - I just marked all rows in the i386 table as
'Optional'. Base, Server and Desktop don't really split out x86_64 and
i386/i686 (sidebar: the best thing about ditching i386/i686/x86_32 is
we no longer have to be terminally confused about what it's freaking
*called*...), so they're OK too. However, Installation is a bit of a
problem:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Installation_test_matrix
quite a lot of the tables have 'i386' and 'x86_64' as environments.
Especially with the Milestone column, listing i386 alongside x86_64 is
a bit misleading if i386 is no longer blocking. I can see a few
options:
1) just ditch the i386 columns entirely; openQA can continue testing
it, and people can test manually if they want, but we don't bother
tracking the results in the validation pages
2) stick an admon template at the top of the page saying 'the i386
tests aren't blocking', with links out to the criteria and/or the FESCo
ticket
3) Duplicate each table which distinguishes between 'i386' and
'x86_64', so we have one table with just an 'i386' column and all tests
marked Optional, and another table with the other columns and the
appropriate milestone
I can see arguments for any of those approaches. #1 is nice and simple
and reduces the scariness of the page, but I guess means we don't get a
quick overview of i386 status and probably means fewer people bothering
to do i386 tests. I don't know how much we care about that.
#2 is also simple and keeps the tests around, but people are probably
going to miss the admon note and will therefore be confused about
whether we're "missing" a lot of required results, if i386 isn't done.
#3 is probably the most 'theoretically correct', but would probably be
something of a giant PITA to read. I suppose we could have the i386
tables collapsed by default. That might work. Now I think about it,
though, I think having rows that are identical except for their
environments might confuse python-wikitcms, I'd have to look into it.
If you're thinking "4) change the Milestone column", I'd rather not,
because those values are somewhat significant to Wikitcms. Other ideas
welcome!
If anyone can think of any other system/process which might need
adjusting for this change, too, please do let us know! Or just go fix
it. ;)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7 years, 8 months
Non-image blocker process change proposal
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks! It's been a recurring issue in the blocker review / release
validation process in recent times that we run across bugs that qualify
as blockers, but for which the fix does not need to be in the final
frozen media or install trees.
Common cases are bugs related to upgrading, especially since the
introduction of fedup and even more so of dnf-system-upgrade; most
upgrade-related issues can now be sufficiently fixed by package updates
to either the source or target release. Bugs to do with writing USB
media from the previous release, for instance, also often fall in this
category.
Up until now we've been sort of handwaving these as 'special blockers',
following the regular blocker process but noting in comments that they
don't block the compose. We haven't been tracking very hard if they
actually *are* being fixed with updates promptly, we've just been sort
of waving a magic wand and assuming it will happen. I just found one
which was supposed to be fixed with a 0-day update for Beta, but hadn't
been fixed yet: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263230
So, we kinda need to do this better.
Up top I'd like to note there are really kind of two buckets of
'special blockers' for any given release. If the release being
validated is N, they are:
1) Bugs for which the fix must be in the 0-day update set for N
2) Bugs for which the fix must be stable in N-1 and N-2 by N release day
There will be a lot of process nerd detail involved in any fix, but
before any detailed drafts I'd like to suggest two broad possible
approaches and see what people think:
#1 Separate trackers
--------------------
As a sort of on-the-spot PoC for F23 Beta, I created a new tracker bug
for bucket 1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264167
We could formalize that approach, and have a '0-day' blocker tracker
for each milestone. We could either just have one '0-day' tracker and
throw bugs for both the pending release and previous stable releases on
the same tracker and keep track of what needs updating where in each
bug, or we could have two 0-day trackers for each milestone, one for
the pending release, and one for previous stable releases.
So we'd have something like:
F24AlphaBlocker
F24AlphaFreezeException
F24Alpha0Day
(F24AlphaStable) (? - better alias suggestions welcome)
and so on. This is a lot of bugs, but there is a script to create them,
so we're not adding a bunch of onerous work.
So far as proposing bugs goes, I think we'd probably want to extend the
current somewhat flexible approach; formally you would nominate a bug
as a particular type of blocker/FE (by marking it as blocking the
appropriate tracker), but we would move things around in blocker review
meetings sensibly, as we currently do (when something is nominated as
FE but should really be a blocker, or vice versa). In blocker review
we'd go through all bugs nominated for any of the trackers, probably
starting with 'Blocker', then '0Day' and 'Stable', then
'FreezeException'.
#2 MOAR METADATA
----------------
The alternative is to make the existing Blocker trackers do more work.
In this model we wouldn't add any new tracker bugs; we'd just add new
'magic words' in the Whiteboard field. Right now, an accepted blocker
is identified by the string 'AcceptedBlocker' appearing in the
whiteboard field. We could simply add some more magical strings like
that: 'Accepted0Day' and 'AcceptedStable', say (better suggestions
welcome).
I kind of like this idea as it's less change and involves creating
fewer new bugs. We'd have to make some changes to blockerbugs either
way - tflink can say if either approach would be more work in
blockerbugs, but I'm gonna guess they'd be fairly similar.
With either approach, the basic goal is to make it more feasible to
keep an eye on each of the different categories of 'release blocker'
bugs; right now we have solid processes in place for ensuring the
'normal' blockers are all addressed in the release media, but we don't
have any processes in place for ensuring 0Day and Stable bugs actually
get updates shipped when we say they must.
My suggestion would be that we make sure 'blockerbugs' includes lists
of each type of blocker. Ahead of and at Go/No-Go meetings, we would
want to have a formal assurance from the person responsible for fixing
the bug that the fix would be provided by a certain time - say, one day
or two days ahead of the release date - and it would be QA's
responsibility to ensure the updates are tested promptly, and releng's
responsibility to ensure they are pushed on time after being tested. I
would suggest the Program Manager ought to have overall responsibility
for keeping an eye on the 0Day and Stable blocker lists and making sure
the maintainer, QA, and releng all did their jobs on time.
It'd be great if folks could post their general thoughts on this, and
any preference for option 1 or option 2. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7 years, 9 months
Criteria proposal: applying 'post-install' criteria to live and
appliance images
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks! I'm working through some criteria issues that came up during
F23 validation.
Here's one: a few times, we hit issues on live images which would have
been violations of the 'post-install' release criteria, except those
are explicitly for 'installed' systems. We generally felt that the
relevant 'post-install' criteria should also apply to live boots.
Here's a top-level idea for handling that:
1. Rename the 'Post-install requirements' section on each criteria page
to 'Post-deployment and live requirements'
2. Add some text at the top of the section explaining the general idea:
the requirements in the section apply to installed systems, 'appliance'
environments like the cloud images, *and* live environments, where
appropriate
3. Adjust the wording of each individual criterion in the sections,
where appropriate. Just to give an example:
"Unless explicitly specified otherwise, after system installation
SELinux must be enabled and in enforcing mode."
would become something like:
"Unless explicitly specified otherwise, SELinux must be enabled and in
enforcing mode in live environments and after system installation."
Does this general approach sound good? If so, I'll post some drafts
later in the week. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7 years, 9 months
GStreamermm
by Russel Winder
Hi,
Debian Sid and Fedora Rawhide both have gstreamer-0.10 and gstreamer-
1.0 libraries, seemingly the full set. However Sid only has Gstreamermm
1.0 and Rawhide only has Gstreamermm 0.10. Is this intentional? It does
make things somewhat awkward creating Gstreamer application with C++.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel(a)winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
7 years, 9 months
criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases
by Kamil Paral
Our current upgrade criterion says:
"For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria#Upgrade_re...
Currently we have no criterion that would cover upgrading across 2 releases, e.g. from F21 to F23 (directly, not one by one). But in the real world this very often happens. It's even one of the reasons we support our releases until N+2 release is available + 1 month (i.e. F21 is supported until F23 is out + 1 month). The often cited reason is for people to be upgrading just once per year (and have one month to do that). And of course many (probably most) of them don't upgrade one by one, but skip a release.
I feel that for something as important as system upgrade, we should provide a better level of quality and assurance for upgrading across 2 releases. Currently we have no criterion and testing it is just an afterthought, not even tracked anywhere. I'd like to amend the existing criterion to include N-2 release as well, i.e.:
"For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of any of the two previous stable Fedora releases with that package set installed."
(language corrections very welcome)
We can discuss whether N+2 upgrading should be a separate Final criterion, not joined with the Beta one. I don't feel strongly either way.
I'd also set up a new test case in our installation matrix in the upgrade section:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Installation_test_matrix#Upgrade
Something like QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_skip_release. The question is whether to have just a single test case and let people choose which package set they test, or whether to pick some particular package set. We probably don't want to test all combinations, at least not manually. Just a single "please test something" test case would be satisfactory here, I think. Something will get tested, and we will block on important bugs we discover, that's the important change.
If we decide to not go this route for some reason, I think we should adjust our tools (system-upgrade) and documentation (wiki, fedora docs) and provide very clear and visible warning that the only officially supported means of upgrading is to go up releases one by one. And that skipping releases might be dangerous (considerably more than doing it the recommended way). Because I feel we would be doing our users a disservice if we neither tested skipping releases nor warned them against doing that.
Thoughts?
Kamil
7 years, 10 months
