Soliciting agenda items for 2014-08-19 meeting
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What are the big items this week?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iEYEARECAAYFAlPx5tQACgkQeiVVYja6o6Ma7ACgkC4AOtnd3U4LFeDEWPuQyrBG
v/4AnR4Hcr6cacqIvaOul/h/H2zehuFK
=Vnzv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 8 months
Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work
by Chris Murphy
This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below.
I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide.
The WorkstationTechnical Spec says:
"One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework."
1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)?
1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken?
2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI?
3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable?
4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be?
The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful.
References:
"grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal"
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html
Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704
Thanks,
Chris Murphy
9 years, 8 months
php fopen
by Daniel Leveque
Hello, I am running FC20 86_64.
I have websites (imported from a previous FC version) which call
writing data to files, namely by opening the file with fopen
Hereunder the simple code which is run:
===================
$TEXT = fopen($fichier, "a");
fputs($TEXT,$page);
fclose($TEXT);
===================
I receive following notice:
*Warning*: fopen(guestbook.txt): failed to open stream: Permission
denied in */var/www/html/IAAM/guestbook/index.php*
I have checked all permissions and they look OK
I have added selinux lines like : httpd_can_network_connect on
I have enabled some lines in php.ini like: allow_url_fopen and
allow_url_include on
A strange thing: the page containing fopen is called index.php; I cannot
chown/chgrp/chmod it. If I force it, automatically after running the
script, returns to the previous position.
I have found hords of items quoting this issue, but could not find any
sound answer.
So far I had no such problem with previous FC OS
Thank you for your help
Daniel
9 years, 8 months
2014-08-13 @ ** 16:00 UTC ** - F21 Blocker Review #6 Minutes
by Petr Schindler
==========================================
#fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review-6
==========================================
Meeting started by pschindl at 16:00:03 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-08-13/f21-blo...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (pschindl, 16:00:03)
* Introduction (pschindl, 16:02:15)
* Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and
nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor
the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have
bugs. (pschindl, 16:02:15)
* We'll be following the process outlined at: (pschindl, 16:02:15)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
(pschindl, 16:02:15)
* The bugs up for review today are available at: (pschindl, 16:02:16)
* LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (pschindl,
16:02:16)
* The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (pschindl,
16:02:17)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
(pschindl, 16:02:17)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
(pschindl, 16:02:18)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
(pschindl, 16:02:18)
* 7 Proposed Blockers (pschindl, 16:03:25)
* 6 Accepted Blockers (pschindl, 16:03:25)
* 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:03:25)
* 0 Accepted Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:03:25)
* (1127280) OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory (pschindl,
16:03:34)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127280
(pschindl, 16:03:34)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (pschindl, 16:03:34)
* We will discuss bug 1127280 after bug 1127103 will be resolved.
(pschindl, 16:05:36)
* (1129507) Anaconda deletes default EFI boot entry (pschindl,
16:06:40)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129507
(pschindl, 16:06:41)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (pschindl, 16:06:41)
* AGREED: - 1129507 - RejectedBlocker - Anaconda doesn't support UEFI
multiboot of Fedoras yet. (pschindl, 16:28:43)
* (1129629) Anaconda doesn't recognize insufficient size of /boot
partition (pschindl, 16:29:25)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129629
(pschindl, 16:29:25)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 16:29:25)
* AGREED: - 1129629 - RejectedBlocker - Creating small /boot partition
involves custom partitioning which is in beta criterion. Reproposing
for beta blocker. (pschindl, 16:35:13)
* (1129695) please provide minimal iso images for offline use
(pschindl, 16:35:34)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129695
(pschindl, 16:35:34)
* Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW (pschindl, 16:35:34)
* AGREED: - 1129695 - RejectedBlocker - Demand for minimal isos
doesn't violate any criterion. This is feature request which should
be discussed elsewhere. (pschindl, 16:43:10)
* (1127450) Black screen after userless installation of KDE live
(pschindl, 16:43:26)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127450
(pschindl, 16:43:27)
* Proposed Blocker, initial-setup, ON_QA (pschindl, 16:43:27)
* AGREED: - 1127450 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug clearly violates the
alpha criterion: "A working mechanism to create a user account must
be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the
installed system." (pschindl, 16:50:30)
* (1128675) missing crucial specfile changes (pschindl, 16:50:42)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128675
(pschindl, 16:50:42)
* Proposed Blocker, java-1.8.0-openjdk, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 16:50:42)
* AGREED: - 1128675 - RejectedBlocker - Missing components in specfile
isn't blocker by itself. If needed this could be re-proposed as
Freeze Exception (pschindl, 17:04:56)
* (1119251) [abrt] tracker: vasprintf(): tracker-store killed by SIGSEGV
(pschindl, 17:05:18)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119251
(pschindl, 17:05:18)
* Proposed Blocker, tracker, ASSIGNED (pschindl, 17:05:18)
* AGREED: - 1119251 - RejectedBlocker - This seems to happen only on
upgraded systems which doesn't block alpha. If this is still an
issue at beta with fedup upgrades, please re-propose as a beta
blocker if it violates any of those criteria (pschindl, 17:11:59)
* (1127103) Workstation image compose sometimes fails due to filesystem
consistency issues (caused by sssd library being held open)
(pschindl, 17:15:57)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127103
(pschindl, 17:15:57)
* Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW (pschindl, 17:15:57)
* Releng team works hard on bug 1127103. No need for action from our
side for now. (pschindl, 17:18:10)
* (1109603) dracut unable to boot 3.16 most of the time (pschindl,
17:18:25)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109603
(pschindl, 17:18:25)
* Accepted Blocker, dracut, NEW (pschindl, 17:18:26)
* it seems like bug 1109603 has needed attention and there is some
work on it. (pschindl, 17:20:31)
* (1123845) Server presets not applied in systemd scriptlets (pschindl,
17:20:44)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123845
(pschindl, 17:20:44)
* Accepted Blocker, fedora-release, NEW (pschindl, 17:20:44)
* ACTION: danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update
(pschindl, 17:25:59)
* (1088933) update grubby to support device tree options for arm
(pschindl, 17:26:25)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088933
(pschindl, 17:26:25)
* Accepted Blocker, grubby, POST (pschindl, 17:26:25)
* dgilmore has this on his probably veeery full todo list. When there
will be time he will finish it. (pschindl, 17:34:42)
* (1110758) SELinux prevents cockpit from working on Fedora 21
(pschindl, 17:35:06)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110758
(pschindl, 17:35:07)
* Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW (pschindl, 17:35:07)
* There is an active work on bug 1110758 (pschindl, 17:38:06)
* (1044778) wandboard uboot missing serial line speed in console
environment variable (pschindl, 17:38:30)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044778
(pschindl, 17:38:30)
* Accepted Blocker, uboot-tools, NEW (pschindl, 17:38:30)
* dgilmore works on this (bug 1044778). (pschindl, 17:41:09)
* u-boot will be updated to a newer upstream build soon. this
particular bug may not be fixed with the update (tflink, 17:42:16)
* the requested patch for wandboard console speed is a divergence from
upstream and they need to be consulted before we start changing
things. will discuss blocker status once that conversation has
happened (tflink, 17:52:45)
Meeting ended at 17:53:50 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* danofsatx-work
* danofsatx-work to pester right people for an update
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* pschindl (147)
* tflink (82)
* kparal (54)
* danofsatx-work (44)
* dgilmore (23)
* pwhalen (17)
* satellit (11)
* bcl (10)
* amita (10)
* garretraziel (8)
* pjones (6)
* zodbot (5)
* jsmith (5)
* mkrizek (4)
* satellit_e (2)
* nirik (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
9 years, 8 months
rolekit: Return values from deploy()
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Right now, the deploy() routines have an output signature of ''
(meaning they return on success or throw a D-BUS error, but return no
results).
I think we probably need to change this to 'a{ss}' (so that we can
return a dictionary of responses). My reasoning is that we may have
Roles that we deploy for which we will want to have one-time-only
attributes returned (such as an autogenerated password). It seems to
me that the best place for this would be in the response to the
deploy() operation.
Do you concur?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlPfcJQACgkQeiVVYja6o6P8MQCgoAxq8eJCtMP7/k8L8HGQ99Lp
gvIAniKN4LZpMwC33KtXGelzOhbKbPZd
=C16h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 8 months