As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Alpha Release Candidate 4 (RC4) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. In general, official live images arrive a few hours after the install images: see the links below for updates. When they appear, the download directory should be the same as that for install images, except with the trailing "/Fedora/" replaced by "/Live/".
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Base:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Security Lab:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Security_Lab_Test
Ideally, all Alpha priority test cases for Installation [2], Base [3], and Desktop [4] should pass in order to meet the Alpha Release Criteria [5]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [6], or on the test list [7].
task#23: Create Fedora 16 Alpha release candidate (RC) - live and traditional https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4859
F16 Alpha Blocker tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=713560
F16 Alpha Nice-To-Have tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=713563
[1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria [6] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [7] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
_______________________________________________ test-announce mailing list test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce
On 08/15/2011 05:15 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Alpha Release Candidate 4 (RC4) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. In general, official live images arrive a few hours after the install images: see the links below for updates. When they appear, the download directory should be the same as that for install images, except with the trailing "/Fedora/" replaced by "/Live/".
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Base:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Security Lab:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Security_Lab_Test
<snip>
Still not installable for me. Bzs 727966 and 723167 apply and both should be alpha blockers. Also, need a tag for 16-Alpha in bugzilla, for auto reporting of tracebacks.
This is disappointing.
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.
In general, if you think a bug should be a blocker, please mark it as such (if you have the appropriate privileges in Bugzilla) or request it on this list. Mentioning it in the bug isn't really enough, because we can't be sure anyone who cares enough to set the blocks: field is actually going to see it.
We want Bugzilla to let anyone set the blocks: field so this isn't a problem any more, but I'm not getting much traction with the BZ maintainers on that :/
Also, need a tag for 16-Alpha in bugzilla, for auto reporting of tracebacks.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Also, need a tag for 16-Alpha in bugzilla, for auto reporting of tracebacks.
Not sure what you mean by that.
That's this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730887
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.
<snip>
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.
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 them.
I can install using one of the desktop spins, but it seems to me that if the DVD won't install during alpha, then there has been a serious regression that should be addressed early. Addressing software bugs late in the development process usually leads to more delays and higher costs.
Just my 2c, I'll be quiet now and go back to my coloring book. :-)
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:06, Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7734@cox.net 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.
<snip>
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.
It is custom because it isn't the default choices. The alpha test criteria are default choices. Yes it means that some bugs will become more expensive, but it also means that you can reach a point of saying these items have been tested versus everything being a blocker.
On 08/16/2011 11:12 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:06, Clyde E. Kunkelclydekunkel7734@cox.net 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.
<snip>
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.
It is custom because it isn't the default choices. The alpha test criteria are default choices. Yes it means that some bugs will become more expensive, but it also means that you can reach a point of saying these items have been tested versus everything being a blocker.
I'm not saying everything is a blocker--only the inability to install the DVD. Heck, you can't even boot a desktop spin that has been installed due to grub2 errors and since there is a good workaround for that it isn't a blocker. There is no workaround for the two bugs I listed even if you take the defaults of only /, swap and /boot.
Please, all this said, I am fine with waiting for final for an installable DVD since (so far) the desktop spin is installable. I just have to express an opinion based on a lifetime of software development management. It is my contribution to the open software movement.
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 11:28 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
I'm not saying everything is a blocker--only the inability to install the DVD. Heck, you can't even boot a desktop spin that has been installed due to grub2 errors and since there is a good workaround for that it isn't a blocker. There is no workaround for the two bugs I listed even if you take the defaults of only /, swap and /boot.
It's clearly not that simple, because multiple people have successfully installed the RC4 DVD. Your situation is more complex than you claim: it is not simply the case that 'DVD install doesn't work'.
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.
<snip>
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 them.
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.
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.
<snip>
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 them.
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 look later.
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.