Hey, folks. It's that time again - time to start thinking about Test
Days for Fedora 18.
For anyone who isn't aware, a Test Day is an event usually focused
around IRC for interaction and a Wiki page for instructions and results,
with the aim being to get a bunch of interested users and developers
together to test a specific feature or area of the distribution. You can
run a Test Day on just about anything for which it would be useful to do
some fairly focused testing in 'real time' with a group of testers; it
doesn't have to be code, for instance we often run Test Days for
l10n/i18n topics. For more information on Test Days, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days .
Anyone who wants to can host their own Test Day, or you can request that
the QA group helps you out with organization, or any combination of the
two. To propose a Test Day, just file a ticket in QA trac - full details
are at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create . For
instructions on hosting a Test Day, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management .
You can see the schedule at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_18_test_days . There are many
slots open right now, with the earliest on 2012-08-09 and the latest
2012-11-01. Consider the development schedule, though, in deciding when
you want to run your Test Day - for some topics you may want to avoid
the time before the Alpha release or the time after the feature freeze
or the Final freeze.
We normally aim to schedule Test Days on Thursdays; however, if you want
to run a series of related Test Days, it's often a good idea to do
something like Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday of the same week (this is
how we usually run the X Test Week, for instance). If all the Thursday
slots fill up but more people want to run Test Days, we will open up
Tuesday slots as overflows. And finally, if you really want to run a
Test Day in a specific timeframe due to the development schedule, but
the Thursday slot for that week is full, we can add a slot on another
day. We're flexible! Just put in your ticket the date or timeframe you'd
like, and we'll figure it out from there.
If you have any questions about the Test Day process, please don't
hesitate to contact me or any other member of the QA team on test@ or in
#fedora-qa on IRC. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
Some changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have been made:
---
In the specific case where multiple software components generate
identically named (but incompatible) binaries, Fedora Packagers should
make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to
resolve the conflict (see: Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts).
However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to
resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates for
alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as
there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed
simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager's
discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.
Be aware, adding explicit Conflicts means that if any other packages
depend on your package, you may be creating a chain-of-conflicts that
could cause user pain. Please consider this as a last resort.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Incompatible_Binary_File…
---
The PEAR section of the PHP Guidelines has been updated to reflect the
existence of a new macro, %{pear_metadir}, along with an example of how
it is to be used, and a new EPEL specific section relating to the fact
that %{pear_metadir} does not exist in RHEL php builds.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PEAR_Modules
---
The MPI Guidelines have been updated to install the module files under a
"mpi" sub-directory and adds "conflict mpi" to the module files to avoid
being able to load multiple mpi modules at one time.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MPI
---
These guideline changes were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).
Many thanks to Remi Collet, Orion Poplawski, Michal Sekletar, and all of
the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing
these guidelines.
As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure
Thanks,
~tom
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting-1 for this important
meeting, wherein we shall determine the readiness of the Fedora 18 Beta.
Thursday, November 01, 2012 @17:00 UTC (13:00 EDT/10:00 PDT/18:00 CET)
"Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet
to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release.
This meeting is called the Go/No-Go Meeting."
"Verifying that the Release criteria are met is the responsibility of
the QA Team."
For more details about this meeting see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
In the meantime, keep an eye on the Fedora 18 Beta Blocker list:
http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/18/beta/buglist
Reminder: Fedora 18 Beta readiness meeting follows the Go/No-Go meeting
in two hours (19:00 UTC, 3pm Eastern, 12pm Pacific).
Btw. please check time against UTC as we are during the daylight saving
time change period...
Jaroslav
Two minor exceptions have been added to the Licensing Guidelines:
A new exception has been added to permit prebuilt binary QEMU ROMs
implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets to be packaged in
those situations where it is not practical or possible to build them
from source, as long as the corresponding source code is also included
in the Source RPM package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes#QEMU_ROMs
The wording of the Binary Firmware exception has been amended slightly
to permit the packaging and inclusion of firmware files which are
necessary to boot Fedora on some devices (e.g. raspberrypi), as long as
the standard exception criteria are met.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes#Binary_Firmware
Thanks,
~tom
==
Fedora Project
FESCo, in cooperation with Fedora QA and Fedora Program Manager,
decided to push back Fedora 18 Beta Change Deadline by one week due to
unfinished/non testable functionality required for the Beta release.
For more information (and voting results) see FESCo ticket #946,
"Fedora 18 Beta freeze readiness: is major functionality in place?" [1].
Beta Change Deadline/Features 100% Complete is now 2012-10-23.
There are still a few unfinished features [2], please update/postpone
(to F19) your features before reaching the deadline.
As a result, ALL MAJOR MILESTONES, and their dependent tasks,
will be pushed out by one week [3].
Jaroslav
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/FeatureList
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule
--
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
Your schedule wrangler
Greetings and salutations!
It is time once again to choose the name for the next release of Fedora.
Suggestions for names will be accepted beginning RIGHT THIS SECOND
(October 9, 2012), and ending promptly at the end of the day on October
16, 2012 (23:59:59 UTC). So mooooooove on over, and help to pick out an
udderly fabulous name for the next release.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_19
The awesome fine print:
You *must* follow the instructions and guidelines at the page listed
above if you want your name to be considered. For instance, there must
be an "is-a" link between the name "Spherical Cow" (from Fedora 18) and
the name you suggest. That link must be different than previous links
for Fedora release names. Names of living people and well-known
trademarks will likely be rejected as well. (Apologies to those wishing
to make links between spherical cows having spots, and Tom Callaway.)
You can also find full schedule details for the release naming process
on the above page. For those of you interested in reviewing the history
of Fedora release names, there is an appropriately named wiki page for
doing so: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History_of_Fedora_release_names
I fully expect that, as always, we will have a delightful (and
occasionally wacky) assortment of names to choose from - I look forward
to seeing your suggestions!
-Robyn
Today at Fedora 18 Beta Change Deadline readiness meeting it was
decided to push back Fedora 18 freeze by one week due to
unfinished/non testable functionality required for the Beta release.
Agreed: Due to upgrade functionality not being in a testable state,
push schedule 1 week to allow it to land before entering beta freeze
(+1 6, 0 0, -1 0 for FESCo, +1 for the whole QA, +1 for FPGM).
Info: to use ticket #946 [1] to revisit the decision, freeze by default
next week.
Beta Change Deadline is now 2012-10-16.
See the full meeting log [2].
As a result, ALL MAJOR MILESTONES, and their dependent tasks,
will be pushed out by one week [3].
Jaroslav
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946
[2] http://bit.ly/PPMkjA
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule
--
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
Your schedule wrangler
A few minor changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have been made:
---
The Ruby Packaging guidelines were updated to reflect the fact that
rubygem packages must have a Requires: rubygems, because that package
(rubygems) owns the RubyGems? directory structure.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
---
The systemd Scriptlets for Fedora 18+ have had their corresponding
scriptlet Requires adjusted from "systemd-units" to "systemd", since
"systemd-units" is provided by the "systemd" package in Fedora 18+.
There is still a separation in previous releases of Fedora (16/17), so
packagers can choose to continue using the old Requires (systemd-units)
if they are targeting multiple versions of Fedora with a single spec file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_script…
---
This guideline change was approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).
Many thanks to Vit Ondruch, Lennart Poettering, and all of the members
of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these
guidelines.
As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure
Thanks,
~tom