test November 2015

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

54 participants
215 discussions

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Alpha (blink)
by Per Bothner 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

"Jerry Amundson" <jamundso(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The alternate VT, kill, restart, is more work for me. > The X -config, change zap setting, is more work for me. VT, kill, restart is a lot less work for you than it would be more somebody accidentally typing C-A-Bs. Having C-A-Bs have the catastrophic effect of killing the X server is too dangerous to do without confirmation. And since you need it when the server is hosed and confirmation may not be possible, it just seems a bad idea. The downside of C-A-Bs accidentally typed hurts users who may not know what happened, and thus may give X a had name. The downside of C-A-Bs no longer killing the server is a slightly more complicated sequence for people who presumably know what they're doing. --Per Bothner per(a)bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/

5 6

RE: NO SOUND
by Asa Canaway 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

As I was reading through the test-list archive, I remembered that I, too, was having the same problem regarding sound and EMU10k. Never worked since trying to initialize sound at installation. At that moment, I recalled what other distributions have done, installing with all mixer settings DOWN. I opened KMIX (my Gnome isn't working right now, but that's for a different message), and adjusted my sliders. They appeared to be up a little, but I moved them up more anyway (what would it hurt if it isn't working, right?). Then I opened up System Settings > Soundcard Detection, and I could barely hear the test pattern. I bumped up my speaker volume a little, and viola! Sound works!

1 0

Re: rawhide report: 20050419 changes
by Ray Strode 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Hi, > Will yelp in FC4 be able to search and display man/info pages Yea, man and info pages work for me. --Ray

2 2

Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Since the latest xorg-X11 upgrade I receive the already mentioned XKB error and the mouse wheel is not working anymore. Has anybody seen this behavior? Regards Chris

3 3

Re: Applause. Stabilizing for test3?
by Brian Stretch 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

> It appears that the new updates for test2 have lead to a rather stable setup, > much better than the initial setup for test2. Mixed with rpms.livna.org and > fedora extras, I'm very impressed at what I can do. I have to applaud the > fedora developers for coming upon such a nice mix. I'm very impressed, and yet > this is only a test. So, my question is am I correct in my assumption that > test2 is pretty much frozen? What things should we expect to see in test3? Are > you going to be testing anything new, or are you just going to be ironing out > the remaining kinks (such as remaining issues selinux)? These two showstopper bugs need to be fixed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118941 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116511 I tried doing fresh installs off today's x86-64 devel tree and they're still there. My notebook's HD has a NTFS partition that triggers the first bug and my desktop has a HD dedicated to Linux (no NTFS) that hits the second bug. Installing with selinux disabled had no effect on the second bug. I didn't try acpi=off but it had no effect the last time I tried it. I assume, but did not try, that a FC1 install can be upgraded to devel. Both installs were via NFS (local mirror). Anyone smarter than me who can spare the time and is looking for bugs to target should take a stab at these.

1 0

Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote: > > > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. : > > > > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down. > > > > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the logs. > > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected. > > You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it: > > Can you ping the server? > What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername? > Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)? I have the same symptoms... rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running. Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9 accesses that host just fine.

7 9

Re: Lexmark Photo P3150
by John Mizell 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

I have tried both with no luck. Thanx, John Mizell -----Original Message----- From: Colin Charles <linux(a)bytebot.net> Sent: Apr 7, 2004 6:47 PM To: John Mizell <jrmizell(a)earthlink.net>, For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com> Subject: Re: Lexmark Photo P3150 On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 03:37, John Mizell wrote: > Has anyone had any luck getting this printer to work? Have you tried www.linuxprinting.org as well as Google for assistance? -- Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my http://www.bytebot.net/ -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

1 0

Re: FC1 -> FC2 upgrade and LVM
by Robert P. J. Day 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

From: Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com> > ... the LVM1 volumes should be found in anaconda and you should just > be able to assign them mount points. As far as conversion, anaconda > isn't going to do this, but '/sbin/lvm vgconvert' should be able to do > it. you da man. this is the nugget of information i've been looking for. so my plan is to back everything up, and do a fresh install over top of the non-user-data logical volumes, then carefully restore all of my system settings as if i was doing it from a brand new install. and at some point, vgconverting everything to LVM2. at that point, it will definitely be molson time. rday

1 0

upgrade issues: FC1 -> FC2, and kernel-related issues
by Robert P. J. Day 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

if there's a pointer to a URL that covers this, that would be just fine. just how is one going to upgrade from FC1 to FC2 and get the 2.6 kernel given the incompatibilities in some of the underlying files from 2.4? long, long ago, i already went through most of the exercise of moving up to the 2.5/2.6 kernels, which involved having to make changes in /etc/rc.sysinit for renamed USB modules and other stuff. and there was the issue involving LVM1 -> LVM2, which i decided to avoid for the time being. (at the moment, i'm running FC1 with a 2.4.22 kernel and LVM1.) so, what happens if someone already has a system with LVM1 volume manager? in switching to the 2.6 kernel, is an upgrade even possible? what if one wants to have the option of both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels at boot time, given some of the incompatibilities? thoughts? rday

1 0

Re: frustration: mailing lists and bugzilla reports
by John Mizell 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Owen, I want to let you and everyone at Redhat know that I do appreciate your work and efforts. It seems some forget that this community project is voluntary and some fixes take time due to other constraints. Thanx, John Mizell -----Original Message----- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com> Sent: Nov 13, 2003 7:15 AM To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com Subject: Re: frustration: mailing lists and bugzilla reports On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:00, Gene C. wrote: > While this message will ultimately meet the "requirements" for reporting to > this list ("is this a bug"==fedora-list, "here is a proposed > patch"==fedora-devel-list, and "here are some rpms to > test"==fedora-test-list), I am going to take the opportunity to comment on a > couple other items. > > First, I can empathize with those posting to this list about bugs rather than > fedora-list because the fedora-list has a too low signal-to-noise ratio. The > problem described below has been posted to the fedora-list but has received > little in comments. Few Red Hat folks seem to read the list (noteable > exception is Bill Nottingham) and I cannot blame them due to the S/N ratio. Of you have concerns (or better yet, suggestions!) about the development process, those are best brought up on fedora-devel. Note that "find more time in the day" is not a particularly useful suggestion ;-(. Yes, this would have been fixed if we had upgraded gnome-panel to 2.4.1 right after it came out on October 14... but since that was after test3, we weren't going to do that without really going through the changes in detail. In the ideal world, we'd never ship a release with any ShouldFix bugs still open. We certainly don't always achieve that. Perhaps for FC2, some external people can help nag on ShouldFix bugs. It really does help a lot if somebody posts a list of "Here are 7 ShouldFix bugs where there are outstanding obvious patches" > Second, I have a question concerning bugzilla reports. Many reports appear to > stay in a "NEW" status for a very long time (sometimes forever). While some > individuals may be away due to circumstances such as vacation, being sick, > etc., I would expect that some attention would be paid to these reports. It > is frustrating when they appear to be ignored and the bug continues ... like, > why bother reporting it when the report is ignored. And the question is, what? "Why are you guys slacking off on RH bugzilla?" Hours in the day, basically. So we can bring you new and exciting GTK+, Nautilus, D-BUS, whatever features. I wouldn't obsess about the *state* of a bug; yes, there is a general policy that bugs should be moved to NEW => ASSSIGNED, once they get looked at, but that really doesn't have much to do with when they get fixed. [ Long saga about panel drawer bug deleted ] Luckily, fedora policies make it a lot easier to throw gnome-panel-2.4.1 in updates than it's typically been to do a similar thing as a Red Hat Linux errata. Regards, Owen -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test November 2015