evdev run amuck?
by Tom Horsley
I was just looking through my X log file to see that the nvidia
driver I installed from rpmfusion was actually being used, and
I spotted this in the log:
(II) config/hal: Adding input device UVC Camera (046d:08c9)
(**) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): always reports core events
(**) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Device: "/dev/input/event11"
(II) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Found keys
(II) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Configuring as keyboard
(II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "UVC Camera (046d:08c9)" (type: KEYBOARD)
I don't see no keyboard on my webcam :-).
Has someone got an experimental image processor layer that looks for
your hands in captured video frames and reads sign language?
15 years, 1 month
Triage Day tomorrow @ 1600 UTC
by Adam Williamson
Quick reminder - tomorrow after the meeting is Triage Day as always, we
had more new folks join the group this week and I alerted them to the
day so hopefully some will show up and we can help them get started. Big
thanks to iarly, john and matej for helping out Gireesh during last
week's triage day!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
15 years, 1 month
Fedora 11 Beta - Installation problem
by Gaurav Prabhu
Hello,
I went about Installing Fedora 11 Beta, just a few minutes ago but was unable to boot from the Fedora 11 Beta KDE LIVE CD.
After loading the vmlinuz & initrd0.img.... It gave the following error.
ACPI : Denied BIOS AML access to invalid port 0x40+0x2 (ELCR)
After waiting for a while the CD proceeded showing me the progress bars, but once the bar gets to full progress, the CD fails to go any further.
I tried prefixing "noacpi" just after the rhgb quiet, but no use.
I tried prefixing noacpi option to the boot line.
It did not gave the above error but some other like;
Buffer I/o error on device sr1, logical block 335331
Buffer I/O error,dev sr1, sector 1341492
[The messages continue with the end sector no changing]
SQUASHFS error : Unable to read page, block 2868a66, size cab
SQUASHFS error : Unable to read data cache entry [28686a66]
SQUASHFS error : squashfs_read_data failed to read block 0x2866db9a
SELinux : Could not load policy file /etc/selinux/targeted/policy/policy.24 : Bad address
Unable to load SELinux policy(Bad address). Halting now.
I even tried with nodma,selinux=0 but then after loading all the process the screen goes blank.
Any solutions?
Regards,
Gaurav Prabhu
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
15 years, 1 month
Kernel Builds Producing Corrupt RPMs On F-11 Beta
by Janina Sajka
We've been attempting to build kernels on our fully updated F-11 Beta
installation (x86_64). The kernel builds, but produces a corrupt
System.map. Thus we can't unpack/install.
Anyone else seeing this? Should we file a bug?
Janina
--
Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.202.595.7777;
sip:janina@CapitalAccessibility.Com
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://CapitalAccessibility.Com
Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada
Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com
Chair, Open Accessibility janina(a)a11y.org
Linux Foundation http://a11y.org
15 years, 1 month
installation issues
by Craig White
probably related to the fact that I'm trying to install on my Acer
Aspire One (1024x600)
I created a USB disk...
mount -o loop \
Fedora-11-Beta-i386-DVD.iso /mnt/iso
livecd-iso-to-disk --reset-mbr \
/mnt/iso/images/boot.iso /dev/sdb1
livecd-iso-to-disk \
Fedora-11-Beta-i386-DVD.iso /dev/sdb1
Then I booted it on the Aspire One using alternate boot, USB HDD
It seems to come up with a text screen that's immediately replaced by a
graphic screen that's blank and until I touch any key and what appears
to be the grub screen scrolls up saying something like Press [TAB] to
enter options.
If I press the <Enter> key, I am given a box that says 'Password
Required' - wtf?
What am I doing wrong?
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
15 years, 1 month
python-libs segfault during setroubleshoot
by Allen Kistler
When I try to run setroubleshoot browser ("sealert -b"), it fails.
Error messages in /var/log/messages report a segfault in libpython, as
follows:
Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost kernel: setroubleshootd[2964]: segfault at 95
ip 05f81ca2 sp bfacf980 error 4 in libpython2.6.so.1.0[5f01000+14f000]
Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.ERROR] could not start
dbus: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.Spawn.ChildSignaled: Process
/lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper received signal 11
Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.proxies.ERROR]
Introspect error on :1.44:/org/fedoraproject/Setroubleshootd:
dbus.exceptions.DBusException: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NoReply:
Message did not receive a reply (timeout by message bus)
Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.ERROR] could not start
dbus: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name :1.44 was not
provided by any .service files
My test install is pretty vanilla from the i386 Beta DVD, then kept up
to date from rawhide as of this posting. There's been a bug report
filed by others (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492737)
that seems to assert that the problem is fixed, but I still see it.
Anyone else, or am I alone?
15 years, 1 month
missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
by Robert P. J. Day
a small set of packages in this morning's update can't be updated,
looking for that dependency. i'm assuming i can just give it a while
and things will correct themselves?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
15 years, 1 month
Reminder: Bug Triage Meeting Tomorrow (Tuesday) @ 15:00 UTC/11 AM EDT
by John Poelstra
Bug Triage Meeting
irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting
Tuesday @ 15:00 UTC/11 AM EDT
Agenda--Continue discussing improvements to the wiki as proposed by beland:
1) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/How_to_Triage to replace
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/ How_to_Triage
* adamw emailing fedora-test-list with draft email to
fedora-devel-list with outstanding questions, including process for
deciding which bugs to upstream
* Should a check for bugs filed in upstream Bugzillas be mandatory?
(conflicting opinions so far)
* Should NEW triagers be asked to do NEEDINFO updates in 30 and 60
days if needed, or should this be left to triagers following the
NEEDINFO checklist? (Beland doesn't, other people do)
* We went over all sections up to 2.0.7 in the last meeting. Please
review the remainder of the document before the meeting if you
haven't already, and have comments ready. You can also e-mail comments
now, and non-controversial improvements will get implemented
sooner.
* After these issues are decided, is this draft ready to go live?
* Later improvements:
o Add references to GreaseMonkey buttons in checklist
instructions (adamw said he would do so)
o Reorganize (poelcat proposes http://fpaste.org/paste/7456 )
2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend
* Consensus seems to be to try come up with unified definitions
across both RHEL and Fedora.
* adamw is sending email to fedora-devel-list (with draft to
fedora-test-list) regarding this issue
See you tomorrow,
John
15 years, 1 month
Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to developers
by Adam Williamson
Hi, guys. As discussed in this morning's meeting, I'm sending a draft of
a mail I propose to send to fedora-devel-list to ask for the opinions of
the developer group on what we should do about Bugzilla policies and
procedures. Does it look OK to everyone? Any suggestions to refine or
improve it? Thanks!
---------------------------------
Hi, -devel-list folks!
We in the Bugzappers team (part of the QA group) are working to revise
our Wiki space, and as part of that, various questions have arisen with
regards to Bugzilla procedures. A lot of the same issues have come up on
this list in the recent past.
In general, it seems like Fedora doesn't really have a properly defined
procedure for exactly how a bug should flow. Every maintainer, reporter
and triager has a slightly different idea of what each status or
resolution or keyword means, and when and by whom they should be
applied.
This is obviously confusing and problematic for any attempt to manage or
monitor Fedora bugs in a systematic way. We should have a consistent
procedure which works for reporters and developers and can be monitored
and managed by the Bugzappers group.
So, to arms!
General bug flow
----------------
This section covers things like "what do all the statuses mean" and
"what do all the resolutions mean" and "who changes what from what to
what, and when".
There is a very well-defined procedure for handling bugs in RHEL. The
first proposal is that we simply use the same procedure (and hence the
same statuses and resolutions) for Fedora. This has the advantage of
giving us a well-defined and tested process which some maintainers will
already be familiar with. The disadvantage of this is that the RHEL
process is probably in some ways over-engineered for Fedora: it uses
several stages managed by different teams which don't really exist so
far as Fedora is concerned, and relies on certain automatic steps which
aren't, AFAIK, actually automated for Fedora.
The second proposal would be to adopt some kind of simplified version of
the RHEL process, using a subset of the same statuses and resolutions,
usually to mean the same thing RHEL uses, with a less complex procedure
for getting all the way from file to fix.
The third proposal would be just to come up with a process for Fedora
from scratch, based probably on some kind of consensus around the
current practices used by various groups.
Specific issues
---------------
So, that's the overview. To get down to some specific issues, here's the
two big ones that have come up:
1) How to handle bugs that occur in multiple releases
There's no obvious One Good Fix for this one, because Bugzilla just
isn't designed to handle it. The two options most heavily discussed
within Bugzappers so far have been:
i) have reporters file separate bugs for each affected release that
someone cares about
ii) track all affected releases via one bug, using comments or keywords
Myself and Vincent Danen tried to come up with a flag-based system for
Mandriva to solve this problem once, but we couldn't really come up with
something that would work better than issue ii) above.
Personally I happen to prefer option i), but either can be made to work.
The most important thing is to pick one option or the other and apply it
consistently. This would mostly be the Bugzappers team's job, but
maintainers obviously have to know the policy chosen and work with it,
and Bugzappers don't want to try and just impose one choice or the
other, we want to know what would be most comfortable for maintainers.
2) What do we do with the Severity and Priority fields
At present these are pretty much roundly ignored by everyone (mostly on
the basis that they're initially set by reporters, who don't follow any
particular procedure, and so they don't convey any useful information).
I personally favour a policy whereby the Bugzappers group would set
these as a part of triage (their choices could be overridden later by
the package maintainer or RelEng). Severity should indicate the
importance of the issue *in the context of the package*, while Priority
indicates the importance of the issue *in the context of the
distribution as a whole*. So a crasher bug in a package only two people
in the world ever use may be High severity but Low priority, while say a
missing icon for Firefox might be Low severity but High priority. In my
experience, if these fields are consistently set by triagers according
to an agreed policy, they do convey valuable information to maintainers
and maintainers (and RelEng) find them useful.
Please, any feedback from active maintainers is most valuable - what I'm
trying to do here is find out what those who use Bugzilla at the sharp
end most need it to work like, to make their work most efficient. We in
Bugzappers see our mission as helping reporters to file useful reports
and maintainers to fix bugs as quickly and easily as possible, so we
want to set our policy based on what will work best for reporters and
maintainers.
Thanks!
----------------------------
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
15 years, 1 month