F21 TC-3 installation issue
by Fred Smith
I installed TC-3 in a VirtualBox VM (latest vbox release, 64-bit) t'other
day. Mostly it went quite well with one really oddball exception. I don't
know if it's a general problem (haven't seen other mentions of it)
or not, but it's weird enough I thought to mention it here.
When creating a user in Anaconda, I entered the password twice, as prompted,
and it said they didn't match. so I did it again. and again. and again. It
insisted they didn't match.
tried the same thing for the root password and got the same result.
So, I entered a one-character password, in both fields, and it did not
say they didn't match. so I tried two chars. ok so far. by working my way
up to the full password, one char at a time in both fields, it allowed me
to get the whole thing in successfully. This worked for both my username
and for root.
Never seen any such thing before!
If anyone wants me to, I can go try more installs and see if I can
reproduce. If I CAN, what sorts of extra info would be helpful when i
report it?
thanks!
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
"And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government there will be no end. He
will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding
it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."
------------------------------- Isaiah 9:7 (niv) ------------------------------
9 years, 5 months
Re: Note on 'systemd-216-9'
by Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:41 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > > > > > small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
> > > >
> > > > > That I can agree with. I'd much prefer a concrete list of things to
> > > > > test in this update though, which would be *useful* and lead to a
> > > > > better release. Right now you suggest that anything might be broken.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I just said it's a big change and the update description doesn't
> > > > accurately encapsulate it.
> > > >
> > > > I would of course be very happy with a concrete list of things to test
> > > > in the update. The update description would be a good place for it.
> >
> > > Well, then ping me on IRC to update the description (or even mail it
> > > to test@ or whatever) and with luck 30 minutes later we would have a
> > > much better picture than by looking at a squashed diff.
> >
> > Well, that's more or less what my initial mail was meant to be. I didn't
> > post the diff initially, only in response to a follow-up mail asking
> > what the difference between the builds was.
>
> The first mail I saw was this:
>
> """I wanted to flag up that, in fact, systemd-216-9 is a major change
> from systemd-216-8 and is not really systemd 216 at all.
> ...
> worked out at >7,000 lines worth of additions and removals between the
> underlying code of 'systemd-216-8' and 'systemd-216-9'.
> """
Oh, sorry. I thought I'd cut that bit before sending the mail. It went
through a few revisions. Sorry :/ I was context-switching between a few
different things. I wrote the mail a few different ways and to a few
different recipients but in the end I only wanted to send out a more or
less factual 'hey, heads up this update needs full testing' mail.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
Re: Note on 'systemd-216-9'
by Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > > > small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
> >
> > > That I can agree with. I'd much prefer a concrete list of things to
> > > test in this update though, which would be *useful* and lead to a
> > > better release. Right now you suggest that anything might be broken.
> >
> > Well, I just said it's a big change and the update description doesn't
> > accurately encapsulate it.
> >
> > I would of course be very happy with a concrete list of things to test
> > in the update. The update description would be a good place for it.
> Well, then ping me on IRC to update the description (or even mail it
> to test@ or whatever) and with luck 30 minutes later we would have a
> much better picture than by looking at a squashed diff.
Well, that's more or less what my initial mail was meant to be. I didn't
post the diff initially, only in response to a follow-up mail asking
what the difference between the builds was.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
Re: Note on 'systemd-216-9'
by Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:13 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > An update has been submitted for systemd today:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
> >
> > with a fairly short description. I wanted to flag up that, in fact,
> > systemd-216-9 is a major change from systemd-216-8 and is not really
> > systemd 216 at all.
> Hi Adam,
>
> this annoucement misrepresents the situation quite a bit. Since you
> are speaking from your position as QA chief
I don't hold that position, and there isn't such a position.
> , your word carries a lot
> of weight. We *were* in contact on IRC yesterday, I'm in #fedora-devel
> semi-permanently, and it should not be a problem to show it to me
> before you sent it out, since you are talking about updates I made. If
> you disagreed with what I have to say and *then* sent the mail, that
> would be fine, but not like this, out of the blue.
Sorry for not running it by you first, but I'm just trying to stay on
top of a whole bunch of stuff for F21 right now. I wasn't *complaining*
about anything. I just wanted to make sure people didn't rubber-stamp
216-9 on the impression that it contained a single bugfix vs -8 or
something.
> Anyway, returning to the matter at hand, systemd-216-9 is fairly close
> to systemd-216-8, has patches over it to fix *known bugs*, the ones
> listed in the update, a few listed on the freedesktop systemd bug
> tracker, and a few small ones I found while testing the update. The
> delta is not as small as I would like, but fits imho in the rules.
I didn't say otherwise, but I wouldn't characterize the diff posted
earlier as 'fairly close', it really isn't. Anything past a dozen LOC is
not 'fairly close', IMHO.
> If
> systemd upstream was doing point releases, this would certainly
> qualify as one.
Well, I didn't want to bring it up, but that would rather clarify
things, wouldn't it? Right now we have a sort of messy situation where
what the Fedora package is is basically 'whatever's on the
systemd-stable 216 branch upstream', and what that is is 'whatever you
find most convenient right at present' - like the Fedora package, up
until a couple of days ago that branch was a few hundred commits added
to the 216 tarball, whereas now it's been completely changed to be 217
minus a few reversions.
This I guess makes sense to you as you have this kind of mental vision
of what you want '216 stable' to be, so it makes sense to at some point
say 'oh hey, my mental 216 stable is just 217 minus X, Y and Z, so let's
make the branch be that' but it's rather difficult for anyone else to
follow, there isn't much continuity. Things like point releases and
changelogs and consistent maintenance procedures and more
differentiation between upstream and downstream changes would make the
picture clearer. While I was researching the mail I kind of pieced
together all this history from the package changelog, the package SCM
commit log, the upstream SCM log, and the Bodhi update comments, but you
*do* have to go through all of that to actually figure out what the
hell's going on, because it's all just '216-x', there's no 216 point
releases, no release documentation, not a lot to differentiate package
changes and upstream changes.
> Actually it was 216-2 which contained the biggest change. I built it
> on Oct 7, before the alpha freeze. It was called "216" because 217
> wasn't tagged yet, and I didn't want F21 to miss the bugfixes and
> features which have accumulated in the upstream git. So 216-2 has most
> of the post-216 commits, and 216-9 is fairly close to that.
Again, well, I posted the diff, and I disagree that it's 'fairly close'.
216-2 was certainly hugely different to 216-1, but 216-1 never went to
updates-testing, so it doesn't really signify.
> > systemd-216-8 (and 216-1 through 216-5) and earlier) was more or less
> > identical to upstream systemd-stable 216:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/log/?h=v216-stable .
> > systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
> > with some particular changes (presumably intended to be the most
> > disruptive ones) reverted. When I dropped build-related files and
> > directories and documentation from the trees, did a context-free
> > recursive diff, and filtered out the metadata from the diff, it still
> > worked out at >7,000 lines worth of additions and removals between the
> > underlying code of 'systemd-216-8' and 'systemd-216-9'. This is a lot of
> > change to land between Beta and Final.
> Like I said on IRC yesterday, a large part of this is code which is
> not compiled for Fedora, or unsupported [*], or tests.
>
> > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
> That I can agree with. I'd much prefer a concrete list of things to
> test in this update though, which would be *useful* and lead to a
> better release. Right now you suggest that anything might be broken.
Well, I just said it's a big change and the update description doesn't
accurately encapsulate it.
I would of course be very happy with a concrete list of things to test
in the update. The update description would be a good place for it.
Another good place for concrete lists of changes would be in the
changelogs for the upstream point releases which we don't have...:)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
2014-11-03 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting - Minutes
by Adam Williamson
==================================
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting
==================================
Meeting started by adamw at 16:02:11 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-11-03/fedora-qa.2014...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll call (adamw, 16:02:19)
* Fedora 21 Beta: remaining work (adamw, 16:08:20)
* major upgrade issue needs mitigating / resolving somehow for beta:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159292 (adamw,
16:10:24)
* AGREED: QA recommends that we at a minimum ensure fedup for 19 and
20 is updated to work around this issue today (and will provide
karma to ensure that's possible). We also endorse the proposal to
delete the Beta upgrade.img and provide an alternative in a special
location if releng considers it viable and not too much work.
(adamw, 16:45:22)
* Common Bugs needs updating -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F21_bugs ,
http://bit.ly/fedora-commonbugs-proposed is the list of bugs that
need to be added to the page (plus some old stale ones) (adamw,
16:50:34)
* Fedora 21 Final schedule (adamw, 16:53:40)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule
(jreznik, 16:55:27)
* it was discussed at Go/No-Go whether any or all of a) TC1 compose
date, b) Final freeze date, c) the actual scheduled Final release
date could be moved up from the current schedule - see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule (adamw,
16:56:13)
* AGREED: QA in principle supports moving any or all of Final TC1,
Final freeze and Final release date a week earlier on the schedule
to provide more time for blocker identification and fixing and less
likelihood of a post-Christmas slip (adamw, 17:10:14)
* Open floor (adamw, 17:16:37)
Meeting ended at 17:20:13 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (142)
* sgallagh (61)
* nirik (37)
* kparal (24)
* jreznik (20)
* roshi (16)
* danofsatx (14)
* wwoods (6)
* mattdm (6)
* zodbot (5)
* masta (3)
* pwhalen (1)
* satellit (1)
* pingou (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
2014-10-27 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting - Minutes
by Adam Williamson
==================================
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting
==================================
Meeting started by adamw at 15:01:10 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-10-27/fedora-qa.2014...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll call (adamw, 15:01:17)
* Fedora 21 Beta status (adamw, 15:06:48)
* thanks to all for Beta testing work last week (adamw, 15:07:45)
* we'll do blocker review following this meeting (adamw, 15:12:01)
* Open floor (adamw, 15:26:36)
* LINK:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/QA/?subject=Test+Day
(kparal, 15:31:50)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/TCMSWants (roshi,
15:35:52)
* roshi has put up https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/TCMSWants
as a place to collect thoughts on what we really want in a test
(case) management system, please add your notes there! (adamw,
15:39:44)
Meeting ended at 16:10:33 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (64)
* roshi (41)
* kparal (9)
* pwhalen (5)
* zodbot (5)
* satellit (3)
* satellit_e (3)
* brunowolff (2)
* jreznik_pp (2)
* lnovich2 (1)
* pschindl (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
One more testing request: F21 fedup using Final TC1 tree
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks! Thanks again for all the Beta validation and fedup testing
lately. There's one more set of testing we could really use results for
quickly.
The Final TC1 compose has been done so early partly with the goal of
providing a fedup upgrade.img that isn't affected by the 15-minute
timeout bug - Final TC1 has been built with systemd 216-8, which removes
that timeout.
It'd be great if folks could test fedup from 19 and 20 to 21, with
--instrepo pointing to the 21 Final TC1 tree:
fedup --network 21 --product (product) --instrepo
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_TC1/Server/x86_64/os
or:
fedup --network 21 --product (product) --instrepo
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_TC1/Server/i386/os
or:
fedup --network 21 --product (product) --instrepo
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_TC1/Server/armhfp/os
ideally, run the test with fedup 0.9.0-1 and a package set that will
take more than 15 minutes to update, so we can confirm the systemd fix
works even without the fedup workaround.
I've run a couple of tests here that looked good, but it'd be good to
have more confirmation. If folks can report back to this thread with
results that'd be great. We intend to have mirrormanager point fedup at
the 21 Final TC1 tree as the upgrade.img source if this testing goes
well.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 5 months
[IMPORTANT] Fedora 21 Schedule Change
by Stephen Gallagher
== tl;dr Version ==
We are accelerating the Fedora 21 schedule so that we will enter Final
Freeze one week earlier than previously described on the schedule
page[1]. This means that all fixes intended for inclusion in the Fedora
21 release must be submitted for the stable repository no later than
November 17th (so that we have time to do the updates push and build the
Release Candidate on November 18th). The Final Release date will remain
at December 9th. This essentially means that we are implementing a
planned two-week Final Freeze instead of the traditional one-week
freeze.
== Why are we doing this? ==
The Fedora 21 cycle has run considerably beyond its original deadline,
primarily due to the massive number of changes that we have been
implementing this time around (in particular, the shift to producing
three top-tier Products has had a significant impact). Because of the
schedule adjustments that took place during the Alpha and Beta phases,
we are now looking at an early December release for Fedora 21.
With the Final Release being so close to the December holidays, any
delay that occurs at this point puts Fedora at real danger of slipping
out of 2014 entirely. To minimize this risk, FESCo has decided (with QA
and rel-eng input), that we are going to make a one-time modification to
our schedule. The historic cause of slips has been that the time between
the start of Freeze and the completion of the release validation has
never left enough room in the schedule to fix any blocker issues that
come up. By moving up the Freeze, we hope to be able to identify these
blockers faster and maintain our curernt planned release date.
We are aware that shortening a schedule puts added strain on our
developers, which is why we generally do not do so except at great
reluctance. However, the Fedora Updates Policy[2] describes the period
between Beta and Final releases thusly: "The branched tree should now be
stabilized and prepared for release. Major changes should be avoided
during this period." So the shorter time-frame should already be
dedicated only to addressing bug-fixes. Most of these can be handled
with a release-day update if needed; those that are truly release-
blocking will remain so (and will be allowed to be built into the
release candidates during the freeze).
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Beta_to_Pre_Release
9 years, 5 months