kde August 2022

kde@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
10 discussions

Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially gating on Rawhide updates
by Adam Williamson 09 Jun '23

09 Jun '23

Hi folks! We've had openQA testing of updates for stable and branched releases, and gating based on those tests, enabled for a while now. I believe this is going quite well, and I think we addressed the issues reported when we first enabled gating - Bodhi's gating status updates work more smoothly now, and openQA respects Bodhi's "re-run tests" button so failed tests can be re-triggered. A few weeks ago, I enabled testing of Rawhide updates in the openQA lab/stg instance. This was to see how smoothly the tests run, how often we run into unexpected failures or problems, and whether the hardware resources we have are sufficient for the extra load. So far this has been going more smoothly than I anticipated, if anything. The workers seem to keep up with the test load, even though one out of three worker systems for the stg instance is currently out of commission (we're using it to investigate a bug). We do get occasional failures which seem to be related to Rawhide kernel slowness (e.g. operations timing out that usually don't otherwise time out), but on the whole, the level of false failures is (I would say) acceptably low, enough that my current regime of checking the test results daily and restarting failed ones that don't seem to indicate a real bug should be sufficient. So, I'd like to propose that we enable Rawhide update testing on the production openQA instance also. This would cause results to appear on the Automated Tests tab in Bodhi, but they would be only informational (and unless the update was gated by a CI test, or somehow otherwise configured not to be pushed automatically, updates would continue to be pushed 'stable' almost immediately on creation, regardless of the openQA results). More significantly, I'd also propose that we turn on gating on openQA results for Rawhide updates. This would mean Rawhide updates would be held from going 'stable' (and included in the next compose) until the gating openQA tests had run and passed. We may want to do this a bit after turning on the tests; perhaps Fedora 37 branch point would be a natural time to do it. Currently this would usually mean a wait from update submission to 'stable push' (which really means that the build goes into the buildroot, and will go into the next Rawhide compose when it happens) of somewhere between 45 minutes and a couple of hours. It would also mean that if Rawhide updates for inter-dependent packages are not correctly grouped, the dependent update(s) will fail testing and be gated until the update they depend on has passed testing and been pushed. The tests for the dependent update(s) would then need to be re- run, either by someone hitting the button in Bodhi or an openQA admin noticing and restarting them, before the dependent update(s) could be pushed. In the worst case, if updated packages A and B both need the other to work correctly but the updates are submitted separately, both updates may fail tests and be blocked. This could only be resolved by waiving the failures, or replacing the separate updates with an update containing both packages. All of those considerations are already true for stable and branched releases, but people are probably more used to grouping updates for stable and branched than doing it for Rawhide, and the typical flow of going from a build to an update provides more opportunity to create grouped updates for branched/stable. For Rawhide the easiest way to do it if you need to do it is to do the builds in a side tag and use Bodhi's ability to create updates from a side tag. As with branched/stable, only critical path updates would have the tests run and be gated on the results. Non-critpath updates would be unaffected. (There's a small allowlist of non-critpath packages for which the tests are also run, but they are not currently gated on the results). I think doing this could really help us keep Rawhide solid and avoid introducing major compose-breaking bugs, at minimal cost. But it's a significant change and I wanted to see what folks think. In particular, if you find the existing gating of updates for stable/branched releases to cause problems in any way, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

1 2

Request for testing: Fedora 37 pre-Beta validation tests
by Adam Williamson 01 Sep '22

01 Sep '22

Hey folks! So we're in freeze for Fedora 37 Beta now, and the first go/no-go meeting should be on September 8. It would be really great if we can get the validation tests run now so we can find any remaining blocker bugs in good time to get them fixed. Right now the blocker list looks short, but there are definitely some tests that have not been run. You can use the testcase_stats view to find tests that need running: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/37/ For each validation test set (Base, Desktop etc.) it shows when each test was last performed. So you can easily look for Basic and Beta tests that have not yet been run. We need to run all of these. You can enter results using `relval report-results`, or edit the summary results page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Summary . That's a redirect link which will always point to the validation results page for the currently-nominated compose, which right now is 20220826.n.0. Sumantro will be running a validation 'test week' starting on Wednesday, so you can drop by the Fedora Test Day room on chat.fedoraproject.org to hang out with other testers and get any help you need in testing. See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedorapro… for that announcement. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

2 1

Heads-up / for discussion: dnf not working with 1G of RAM or less
by Adam Williamson 29 Aug '22

29 Aug '22

Hey folks! I apologize for the wide distribution, but this seemed like a bug it'd be appropriate to get a wide range of input on. There's a bug that was proposed as an F37 Beta blocker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 it's quite an old bug, but up until recently, the summary was apparently accurate - dnf would run out of memory with 512M of RAM, but was OK with 1G. However, as of quite recently, on F36 at least (not sure if anyone's explicitly tested F37), dnf operations are commonly failing on VMs/containers with 1G of RAM due to running out of RAM and getting OOM-killed. There's some discussion in the bug about what might be causing this and potential ways to resolve it, and please do dig into/contribute to that if you can, but the other question here I guess is: how much do we care about this? How bad is it that you can't reliably run dnf operations on top of a minimal Fedora environment with 1G of RAM? This obviously has some overlap with our stated hardware requirements, so here they are for the record: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/welcome/Ha… that specifies 2GB as the minimum memory for "the default installation", by which I think it's referring to a default Workstation install, though this should be clarified. But then there's a "Low memory installations" boxout, which suggests that "users with less than 768MB of system memory may have better results performing a minimal install and adding to it afterward", which kinda is recommending that people do exactly the thing that doesn't work (do a minimal install then use dnf on it), and implying it'll work. After some consideration I don't think it makes sense to take this bug as an F37 blocker, since it already affects F36, and that's what I'll be suggesting at the next blocker review meeting. However, it does seem a perfect candidate for prioritized bug status, and I've nominated it for that. I guess if folks can chime in with thoughts here and/or in the bug report, maybe a consensus will emerge on just how big of an issue this is (and how likely it is to get fixed). There will presumably be a FESCo ticket related to prioritized bug status too. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

3 2

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : KDE SIG
by ngompa＠fedoraproject.org 28 Aug '22

28 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: KDE SIG on 2022-08-29 from 13:00:00 to 14:00:00 US/Eastern At https://meet.kde.org/b/ale-swq-39j The meeting will be about: Regular meeting for the KDE SIG Current Topics: https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting More information available at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIG… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9876/

1 0

Ownership of KDE packages
by Daniel Vrátil 22 Aug '22

22 Aug '22

Hi all, how's everyone in the SIG doing? :-) It's been a while since I posted to this list, and probably even more time since I contributed to Fedora KDE :-) I recently gave up the "packager" status, since, well, I'm no longer contributing to Fedora. Checking src.fpo I found I'm still in the role of Maintainer of many KDE packages (mostly Frameworks, which I submitted all those years ago), oftentimes with @kde-sig only having commit rights. Obviously, this is wrong, especially considering my recent level of involvement in the SIG ;-) I would like to fix the current state of affairs, but I want to consult the SIG first - IIRC (and my memory is really cloudy on this one), only specific people from the SIG had admin rights for packages, but my memory might be wrong and/or things may have changed since my time, so - should I assign @kde-sig as the Admin of all those packages, or only specific people (e.g. Neal, Rex, Than, ...? I don't even know who's active in the SIG anymore). Second, if I click the "Orphan" button, does it only remove me as a Maintainer, or does it completely orphan the package? If the latter, how do I remove myself from the package? At this point me having commit rights to all those packages is a security threat rather than anything else, so I would like to remove myself from all those packages. Especially since we can now do pull requests... Cheers, Dan

2 3

2022-08-22 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 37 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 21 Aug '22

21 Aug '22

# F36 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2022-08-22 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.libera.chat Hi folks! We have 3 proposed Beta blockers, 1 proposed Beta freeze exception issue, and 13 proposed Final blockers to review, so let's have a review meeting. Note, I'll try and cut that number of Final blockers down before the meeting - it'll help if folks can vote ahead. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . Remember, you can also now vote on bugs outside of review meetings! If you look at the bug list in the blockerbugs app, you'll see links labeled "Vote!" next to all proposed blockers and freeze exceptions. Those links take you to tickets where you can vote. https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review has instructions on how exactly you do it. We usually go through the tickets shortly before the meeting and apply any clear votes, so the meeting will just cover bugs where there wasn't a clear outcome in the ticket voting yet. **THIS MEANS IF YOU VOTE NOW, THE MEETING WILL BE SHORTER!** We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F36 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good night/day and see you tomorrow/later today! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : KDE SIG
by ngompa＠fedoraproject.org 21 Aug '22

21 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: KDE SIG on 2022-08-22 from 13:00:00 to 14:00:00 US/Eastern At https://meet.kde.org/b/ale-swq-39j The meeting will be about: Regular meeting for the KDE SIG Current Topics: https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting More information available at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIG… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9876/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : KDE SIG
by ngompa＠fedoraproject.org 14 Aug '22

14 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: KDE SIG on 2022-08-15 from 13:00:00 to 14:00:00 US/Eastern At https://meet.kde.org/b/ale-swq-39j The meeting will be about: Regular meeting for the KDE SIG Current Topics: https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting More information available at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIG… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9876/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : KDE SIG
by ngompa＠fedoraproject.org 07 Aug '22

07 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: KDE SIG on 2022-08-08 from 13:00:00 to 14:00:00 US/Eastern At https://meet.kde.org/b/ale-swq-39j The meeting will be about: Regular meeting for the KDE SIG Current Topics: https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting More information available at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIG… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9876/

1 0

Plasma is not shown as an entry in switchdesk
by Robert McBroom 03 Aug '22

03 Aug '22

Fedora 36 booting mode 3 to a command line boot, the switchdesk entry Plasma doesn't do anything. I can switch from the default Gnome to xfce and back. Booting with a display manager has an entry for Plasma(X11) that works. the gui for switchdesk does not show Plasma. What needs to be done to get these functions back? Also the desktop menu not longer has an entry for "leave" can get there from the application launcher menu. Is there an edit to add it back to the desktop menu?

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

kde August 2022