As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for installation [2] and desktop [3] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [4]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [5], or on the test list [6].
F15 Beta Blocker tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657618
F15 Beta Nice-To-Have tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657619
[1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Beta_Release_Criteria [5] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [6] 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 04/09/2011 05:35 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Would it possible to include a changelog of what has been the updates in between the RC's? It's hard to keep track of whether the bugs already reported have been fixed or not
Rahul
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 06:15 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 04/09/2011 05:35 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Would it possible to include a changelog of what has been the updates in between the RC's? It's hard to keep track of whether the bugs already reported have been fixed or not
Follow the trac ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4538
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:05 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for installation [2] and desktop [3] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [4]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [5], or on the test list [6].
Just tried the x86_64 netinstall (kvm). Installation went smoothly. After rebooting I get a black screen. Before the boot progress bar appears I see a 'mkdir' error message flash.
I cant boot to level 3, it would be nice if the bootmenu was easily accessible in the alpha/beta stage...
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:25 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:05 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for installation [2] and desktop [3] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [4]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [5], or on the test list [6].
Just tried the x86_64 netinstall (kvm). Installation went smoothly. After rebooting I get a black screen. Before the boot progress bar appears I see a 'mkdir' error message flash.
I cant boot to level 3, it would be nice if the bootmenu was easily accessible in the alpha/beta stage...
Managed to get to the boot menu and boot in level 3. It seems NetworkManager is not allowed to start (selinux). Booting with enforcing=0 gets me to the firstboot screens.
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:32 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
Managed to get to the boot menu and boot in level 3. It seems NetworkManager is not allowed to start (selinux). Booting with enforcing=0 gets me to the firstboot screens.
This is the same bug several people have already reported, it's fixed in RC2 and selinux-policy 13.
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 07:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:32 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
Managed to get to the boot menu and boot in level 3. It seems NetworkManager is not allowed to start (selinux). Booting with enforcing=0 gets me to the firstboot screens.
This is the same bug several people have already reported, it's fixed in RC2 and selinux-policy 13. --
I tested this with RC2, hence the reply to this thread. I ran into this problem with RC2.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 13:30 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 07:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:32 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
Managed to get to the boot menu and boot in level 3. It seems NetworkManager is not allowed to start (selinux). Booting with enforcing=0 gets me to the firstboot screens.
This is the same bug several people have already reported, it's fixed in RC2 and selinux-policy 13. --
I tested this with RC2, hence the reply to this thread. I ran into this problem with RC2.
If you did a network install, you may not have got the packages from RC2. We can only guarantee they're on the images; whether they're on the mirrors comes down to sync times.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
This is the same bug several people have already reported, it's fixed in RC2 and selinux-policy 13. --
I tested this with RC2, hence the reply to this thread. I ran into this problem with RC2.
If you did a network install, you may not have got the packages from RC2. We can only guarantee they're on the images; whether they're on the mirrors comes down to sync times.
Ahhhh--that explains a lot. Thank you.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 11:36 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
This is the same bug several people have already reported, it's fixed in RC2 and selinux-policy 13. --
I tested this with RC2, hence the reply to this thread. I ran into this problem with RC2.
If you did a network install, you may not have got the packages from RC2. We can only guarantee they're on the images; whether they're on the mirrors comes down to sync times.
Ahhhh--that explains a lot. Thank you.
Boot with enforcing=0, check the version of selinux-policy; if it's -12, get -13 and it should be fixed.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:09:24AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 11:36 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
If you did a network install, you may not have got the packages from RC2. We can only guarantee they're on the images; whether they're on the mirrors comes down to sync times.
Ahhhh--that explains a lot. Thank you.
Boot with enforcing=0, check the version of selinux-policy; if it's -12, get -13 and it should be fixed.
Just did that, and as you predicted (I did get -13) it solves the issue. Thanks as always.
Quoting Andre Robatino robatino@fedoraproject.org:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Installed Fedora 15 Beta RC2 x86_64 from netinstall, NetworkManager keeps screwing up DHCP from both wired and wireless connection on post installation. Worse, using ifup em2 will not get online access. That behaviour did not happen on Alpha version and i686 Fedora 15 Beta based Gnome 3 Live . Details is available on bug #691663 [*] including the Reatket wireless hardware. Adam did his best to figure out the issue but that strange problem left more puzzles than solution. I don't know if other people have similar issue.
Luya
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Andre Robatino robatino@fedoraproject.org wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Installation went smooth under Virtualbox on my F14 x86_64 system. It was nice that mouse integration worked out of the box.
I installed to the virtual hard drive, rebooted and was greeted with a black screen and 100% processor usage. I think this happened with the 14 RC's as well.
Richard
On 04/09/2011 02:05 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions.
After the Nth time downloading the full DVD ISO instead of netinst (my bad; I seem to forget which image to use between clean installs) and the SELinux policies hiccup in f15 beta RC1 vs. RC2, I had a question...
Would it be possible to make full DVD ISO in a similar way to the netinst or livecd ISOs, so that it can be booted off a USB key easily? I know it's possible to make a bootable USB by cherry-picking files off the DVD ISO and running some commands, but it'd be so nice to be able to do a simple "dd" and reboot. The net install works well, but sometimes it's better to have all the files local (e.g. to avoid repository sync lag).
Just wondering about the possibility (technically, time-wise) of a hybrid image.
Looking forward to the final f15 goodness!
- John
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM, John Keller fedora@johnkeller.com wrote: Would it be possible to make full DVD ISO in a similar way to the
netinst or livecd ISOs, so that it can be booted off a USB key easily? I know it's possible to make a bootable USB by cherry-picking files off the DVD ISO and running some commands, but it'd be so nice to be able to do a simple "dd" and reboot. The net install works well, but sometimes it's better to have all the files local (e.g. to avoid repository sync lag).
Just wondering about the possibility (technically, time-wise) of a hybrid image.
I don't know why you need a hybrid image - for ages I have used livecd-iso-to-disc to write the DVD install iso to a usbkey and it works fine for me (for several generations of Fedora as released as well as the alpha and betas). You do need a reasonably up to date Fedora system to run the command but certainly if you have f13 or f14 it should be fine - (of course you have to have a large enough usbkey to hold the full file! and you also need to have it unmounted when you run the livecd-iso-to-disc command, and of course need livecd-tools installed on the system that will write the usbkey!)
On 04/11/2011 05:29 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM, John Keller fedora@johnkeller.com wrote: Would it be possible to make full DVD ISO in a similar way to the
netinst or livecd ISOs, so that it can be booted off a USB key easily? I know it's possible to make a bootable USB by cherry-picking files off the DVD ISO and running some commands, but it'd be so nice to be able to do a simple "dd" and reboot. The net install works well, but sometimes it's better to have all the files local (e.g. to avoid repository sync lag).
Just wondering about the possibility (technically, time-wise) of a hybrid image.
I don't know why you need a hybrid image - for ages I have used livecd-iso-to-disc to write the DVD install iso to a usbkey and it works fine for me (for several generations of Fedora as released as well as the alpha and betas). You do need a reasonably up to date Fedora system to run the command but certainly if you have f13 or f14 it should be fine - (of course you have to have a large enough usbkey to hold the full file! and you also need to have it unmounted when you run the livecd-iso-to-disc command, and of course need livecd-tools installed on the system that will write the usbkey!)
It's not so much a need as a hope, and a convenience. I'm familiar with the different tools for creating a bootable install USB from a DVD image (from manual to fully automatic). But the tools that make it simple are only available (or at least supported) under Fedora, and a relatively recent version as you point out.
Having switched from another distro, I can vouch that the closer the tools are to being part of the base system, the easier it is for people to do it on another distro (or even another OS). Hard to get more basic than "dd" :-) (it even exists for Windows).
Besides the simplicity via "dd", a hybrid image would also allow testing the DVD image without having to burn a DVD. Granted, there's got to be a difference in the initial bootstrap, but I'd expect that the rest (especially the parts related to Anaconda) would be the same. I don't know if that's enough reason on its own, but it'd be nice.
Again, it isn't a necessity - I can certainly get along fine with the netinst image for testing and burning a DVD on final release. And if it's not a goal for Fedora to make the DVD image a hybrid, instead relying on external tools for making bootable USB keys, then I'm sure that's fine for others. It's just my recent experiences that made me think about the possibilities (and benefits) that a hybrid image could bring and so I wanted to ask about that.
- John