[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 Alpha Release Candidate 4 (RC4) Available Now!
Clyde E. Kunkel
clydekunkel7734 at cox.net
Tue Aug 16 19:08:12 UTC 2011
On 08/16/2011 01:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 10:06 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>> On 08/15/2011 11:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 21:38 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>>>> Still not installable for me. Bzs 727966 and 723167 apply and both
>>>> should be alpha blockers.
>>> 727966 requires custom layout, which makes it Final, not Alpha. 723167
>>> is supposed to be fixed in RC4; if you think it still applies, add a
>>> comment with precise details.
>> Custom layout? What is so custom about /home being on a separae LV so
>> you don't have to recreate it each time? Even not asking it to be
>> mounted and just adding / and /boot results in 727966.
> The Alpha criteria require only the 'use all space', 'use free space'
> and 'reuse existing Linux partitions' options to work. _Anything_ which
> involves using the custom partitioning screen in any way is outside
> Alpha scope. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria, #11 (at
> time of writing).
>> As for more details, the bzs stand on their own with all of the details
>> already in them. No developer/maintainer has asked for more details in
> As I wrote, as far as the developers are concerned, 723167 is fixed in
> RC4: you can see that quite easily from the bug report. So they're
> probably going to need more details, if you claim that it is not fixed.
OK, I guess I misread 723167. I have been going by comment 11 in the bz
in which J.Reiser talks about a system with other distros on it and have
been assuming those conditions led to rpmdb open failed. Since I still
hit the traceback at the same point in the install attempt, I assumed
(falsely I now recognize) that the error condition still existed and
hadn't been fixed. Instead it looks like he is talking about two
separate conditions that lead to errors: 1) rpmd open failure; and 2)
multiple other distros and versions. Only 1) has been fixed and it
looks like there needs to be a bz for 2). Maybe there is, I will take a
I am sorry for the noise this has created, but am still of the opinion
that Alpha should be installable especially since it seems that any of
the Alpha install criteria should be obtainable via the custom
partitioning screens (Hmmfff, maybe I should think about this some more.
Maybe they shouldn't.).
Anyway, I got the desktop spin with anaconda 16.14-1 to install with the
known grub2 error.
More information about the test