Fedora 14 Beta RC3 is now available [1]. Please refer to 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].
[1] http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-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_14_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
Thanks for your announcement, Andre. I will be away on holidays in the following three days, so testers please help validate the DVD, CD and Live Image installation tests[1]. Thanks in advance!
Rgds, Hurry
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 03:48 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
Fedora 14 Beta RC3 is now available [1]. Please refer to 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].
[1] http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-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_14_Beta_Release_Criteria [5] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [6] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:48:58 -0400, Andre wrote:
Fedora 14 Beta RC3 is now available [1].
Is this the one that was declared GOLD a day later?
Downloaded the i686 DVD iso yesterday. Installed it onto a multiboot machine. Custom partitioning. Root on LVM. Boot on primary partition. Home and Storage with existing partitions.
Installer complained about Device or Resource busy before presenting the package customisation screen and could not access a repository. I disabled updates-testing and could install anyway.
When booting this installation, I arrive at gdm's greeter without any firstboot procedure. No user account is available except root. Firstboot package is installed, but not added to any runlevel. What has gone wrong?
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 09:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:48:58 -0400, Andre wrote:
Fedora 14 Beta RC3 is now available [1].
Is this the one that was declared GOLD a day later?
Yes.
Downloaded the i686 DVD iso yesterday. Installed it onto a multiboot machine. Custom partitioning. Root on LVM. Boot on primary partition. Home and Storage with existing partitions.
Installer complained about Device or Resource busy before presenting the package customisation screen and could not access a repository. I disabled updates-testing and could install anyway.
I just tested the DVD install (again) in a KVM. Did not see this...
When booting this installation, I arrive at gdm's greeter without any firstboot procedure. No user account is available except root. Firstboot package is installed, but not added to any runlevel. What has gone wrong?
...or this. The install completed without errors and firstboot appeared on reboot. I don't know what went wrong for you. Can you check the version of the firstboot package, and see if upstart-sysvinit or systemd-sysvinit is installed? Are you sure it's Beta RC3 you're testing, you didn't accidentally download an earlier image?
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:28:10 +0100, Adam wrote:
When booting this installation, I arrive at gdm's greeter without any firstboot procedure. No user account is available except root. Firstboot package is installed, but not added to any runlevel. What has gone wrong?
...or this. The install completed without errors and firstboot appeared on reboot. I don't know what went wrong for you. Can you check the version of the firstboot package, and see if upstart-sysvinit or systemd-sysvinit is installed? Are you sure it's Beta RC3 you're testing, you didn't accidentally download an earlier image?
Well, it's the image advertised/linked in the RC3 release announcement: http://serverbeach1.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/14-Beta.RC3/Fedora/i386/...
$ sha256sum Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso 8cf311230f8898c2eb7c53e4c4dfa69c17e44c4b735eaeff0cb4883b9ef16ece Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso
$ rpm -q upstart-sysvinit firstboot upstart-sysvinit-0.6.5-8.fc14.i686 firstboot-1.112-3.fc14.i686
$ chkconfig --list firstboot service firstboot supports chkconfig, but is not referenced in any runlevel (run 'chkconfig --add firstboot')
$ rpm -q --scripts firstboot postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if ! [ -f /etc/sysconfig/firstboot ]; then systemctl enable firstboot-text.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : systemctl enable firstboot-graphical.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if [ $1 = 0 ]; then rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/*.pyc rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/modules/*.pyc chkconfig --del firstboot systemctl disable firstboot-graphical.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : systemctl disable firstboot-text.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi
Huh? No chkconfig --add firstboot?
install.log says: | [...] | Installing ntpdate-4.2.6p2-4.fc14.i686 | cannot determine current run level | Installing ntp-4.2.6p2-4.fc14.i686 | cannot determine current run level | [...]
/etc/sysconfig/firstboot doesn't exist yet, of course.
$ rpm -q upstart-sysvinit firstboot upstart-sysvinit-0.6.5-8.fc14.i686 firstboot-1.112-3.fc14.i686
This one ought to be included with RC3:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14,metacity-2.30...
$ chkconfig --list firstboot service firstboot supports chkconfig, but is not referenced in any runlevel (run 'chkconfig --add firstboot')
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q upstart-sysvinit firstboot upstart-sysvinit-0.6.5-8.fc14.i686 firstboot-1.112-3.fc14.i686
This one ought to be included with RC3:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14,metacity-2.30...
Those packages are included in F-14-Beta (RC3)
# for DVD in Fedora-14-Beta-*-DVD.iso ; do isoinfo -f -i $DVD | grep "/(firstboot|metacity)" ; done /Packages/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14.i686.rpm /Packages/metacity-2.30.0-8.fc14.i686.rpm /Packages/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14.x86_.rpm /Packages/metacity-2.30.0-8.fc14.x86_.rpm
$ sha256sum Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso 8cf311230f8898c2eb7c53e4c4dfa69c17e44c4b735eaeff0cb4883b9ef16ece Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso
That is the correct sha256sum.
# grep DVD Fedora-14-Beta-i386-CHECKSUM 8cf311230f8898c2eb7c53e4c4dfa69c17e44c4b735eaeff0cb4883b9ef16ece *Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso
# sha256sum -c Fedora-14-Beta-i386-CHECKSUM Fedora-14-Beta-i386-DVD.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-disc1.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-disc2.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-disc3.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-disc4.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-disc5.iso: OK Fedora-14-Beta-i386-netinst.iso: OK
$ rpm -q upstart-sysvinit firstboot upstart-sysvinit-0.6.5-8.fc14.i686 firstboot-1.112-3.fc14.i686
That is incorrect. I'm not sure what system that command is being run on or how it was installed. If installed from the F-14-Beta DVD, that firstboot package is not even available on the DVD.
# rpm -q upstart-sysvinit firstboot upstart-sysvinit-0.6.5-8.fc14.i386 firstboot-1.113-3.fc14.i386
$ chkconfig --list firstboot service firstboot supports chkconfig, but is not referenced in any runlevel (run 'chkconfig --add firstboot')
After firstboot has run, you should see the following...
# chkconfig --list firstboot firstboot 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:off 4:off 5:off 6:off
$ rpm -q --scripts firstboot postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if ! [ -f /etc/sysconfig/firstboot ]; then systemctl enable firstboot-text.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : systemctl enable firstboot-graphical.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if [ $1 = 0 ]; then rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/*.pyc rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/modules/*.pyc chkconfig --del firstboot systemctl disable firstboot-graphical.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : systemctl disable firstboot-text.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi
Huh? No chkconfig --add firstboot?
Somehow, you've got the wrong (old) firstboot package installed, so the scripts above are not correct.
# rpm -q --scripts firstboot postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if ! [ -f /etc/sysconfig/firstboot ]; then chkconfig --add firstboot fi preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if [ $1 = 0 ]; then rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/*.pyc rm -rf /usr/share/firstboot/modules/*.pyc chkconfig --del firstboot fi
How did you install? Manually vs kickstart? Enabling additional non-media repositories? Do you have /root/anaconda-ks.cfg available?
Thanks, James
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:35:19 -0400, James wrote:
How did you install?
DVD iso placed on a storage partition. Created a GRUB entry for the installer vmlinuz+initrd and pointed Anaconda at the iso partition.
Manually vs kickstart?
Manually, but unattended after filling in the necessary screens in Anaconda. I'm going to try it again later this evening, trying to find out whether the "Device or resource busy" dialog may have been responsible for falling back to a http install.
Enabling additional non-media repositories?
No, defaults with updates-testing disabled explicitly.
Do you have /root/anaconda-ks.cfg available?
Yes, sent to you privately.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:35:19 -0400, James wrote:
This one ought to be included with RC3:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14,metacity-2.30...
Those packages are included in F-14-Beta (RC3)
# for DVD in Fedora-14-Beta-*-DVD.iso ; do isoinfo -f -i $DVD | grep "/(firstboot|metacity)" ; done /Packages/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14.i686.rpm /Packages/metacity-2.30.0-8.fc14.i686.rpm /Packages/firstboot-1.113-3.fc14.x86_.rpm /Packages/metacity-2.30.0-8.fc14.x86_.rpm
Confirmed.
Find attached the logs created by Anaconda. There's a suspicious "repo" line pointing at a HTTP server despite having done a hard-disk install (something I've done many many many times before). I cannot make sense of it without checking the kickstart docs, but it looks like the old packages was fetched from a stale repo.
Seems telnet installs are again broken. I've filed bug 639629 Submitted - Installation over telnet isn't working
This has happened more than once in the past. It would be REALLY REALLY nice if this functionality could be among the things verified before new distribution releases. Since it does keep coming up, shouldn't telnet install be on some checklist?
Janina
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Janina Sajka janina@rednote.net wrote:
Seems telnet installs are again broken. I've filed bug 639629 Submitted
- Installation over telnet isn't working
James Laska recently mentioned that "the ability to telnet into the installer and direct the installation from the telnet session has been removed" -- see this ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/129
This has happened more than once in the past. It would be REALLY REALLY nice if this functionality could be among the things verified before new distribution releases. Since it does keep coming up, shouldn't telnet install be on some checklist?
AFAIK it _was_ on some list of installer test cases, but isn't supported anymore. It's probably recommended that you use SSH instead.
Hi,
Jon Hermansen writes:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Janina Sajka janina@rednote.net wrote:
Seems telnet installs are again broken. I've filed bug 639629 Submitted
- Installation over telnet isn't working
James Laska recently mentioned that "the ability to telnet into the installer and direct the installation from the telnet session has been removed" -- see this ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/129
Thanks for the pointer.
AFAIK it _was_ on some list of installer test cases, but isn't supported anymore. It's probably recommended that you use SSH instead.
Hmmm, looks much worse than that, from my perspective. Seems ssh isn't replacing telnet's use case at all: http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-testing/msg93762.html
So, I will go test whether accessibility support is fixed in the Live image. If not, I have no way to install Fedora without assistance from someone. That would not be good at all.
Janina
test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
If not, I have no way to install Fedora without assistance from someone. That would not be good at all.
Have you considered upgrading instead of a fresh install? Some users reported success about a month ago:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-09-02_Preupgrade
Alternatively, you may be able to use koan/cobbler to reinstall your pre-existing system.
http://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/
I would be more than happy to assist with a VNC install if you can open a port in your firewall (or perhaps a reverse VNC connection is possible), send me a private e-mail if you're interested.
I suggested the SSH alternative because someone can sniff out your entire telnet session (passwords included) if they are on your private network or can poison your router's ARP cache. Is there some functionality/accessibility that the telnet install provided that SSH won't? Maybe that is the best way to address this problem, even if after the F-14 final release...
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 20:56 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
Hi,
Jon Hermansen writes:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Janina Sajka janina@rednote.net wrote:
Seems telnet installs are again broken. I've filed bug 639629 Submitted
- Installation over telnet isn't working
James Laska recently mentioned that "the ability to telnet into the installer and direct the installation from the telnet session has been removed" -- see this ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/129
Thanks for the pointer.
AFAIK it _was_ on some list of installer test cases, but isn't supported anymore. It's probably recommended that you use SSH instead.
Hmmm, looks much worse than that, from my perspective. Seems ssh isn't replacing telnet's use case at all: http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-testing/msg93762.html
So, I will go test whether accessibility support is fixed in the Live image. If not, I have no way to install Fedora without assistance from someone. That would not be good at all.
Andre correctly reminded me that 'ssh' installer support is not intended as a replacement for a telnet install. Rather, it is a means for enabling 'ssh' to remotely monitor install progress. Translation, you can ssh into the installing system and monitor /tmp/*log or do whatever else you want from a shell. Essentially, it provides the shell you normally get on tty2, but over the network.
Thanks, James
James Laska writes:
Andre correctly reminded me that 'ssh' installer support is not intended as a replacement for a telnet install. Rather, it is a means for enabling 'ssh' to remotely monitor install progress. Translation, you can ssh into the installing system and monitor /tmp/*log or do whatever else you want from a shell. Essentially, it provides the shell you normally get on tty2, but over the network.
So, what's the new way to install on a remote machine where one has no hands-on access? What do those of us with machines at dataplexes like The Planet, or with virtual machines on services like Virtual Host do?
To my mind ssh would be a perfect replacement for telnet for all the obvious security reasons.
If, however, the answer is vnc, then I'm compelled to point out that leaves some of us out of the party.
Janina
Thanks, James
-- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 00:16 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
James Laska writes:
Andre correctly reminded me that 'ssh' installer support is not intended as a replacement for a telnet install. Rather, it is a means for enabling 'ssh' to remotely monitor install progress. Translation, you can ssh into the installing system and monitor /tmp/*log or do whatever else you want from a shell. Essentially, it provides the shell you normally get on tty2, but over the network.
Please keep in mind, the Fedora QA team tests and provides feedback on how aspects of Fedora match intended behaviors. We don't make policy around what features/support should or shouldn't be worked on. So I definitely understand it's frustrating when support for a feature is removed or changed, this likely isn't the best forum to influence development.
So, what's the new way to install on a remote machine where one has no hands-on access? What do those of us with machines at dataplexes like The Planet,
It's not new, but most system administrators deploy a large number of headless systems using kickstart.
or with virtual machines on services like Virtual Host do?
Installing on virtual systems is a different issue, you have root console access and can control the installation using the virtual systems serial device. I'm not sure I understand the use case for a remote 'telnet' installation to a virtual guest.
To my mind ssh would be a perfect replacement for telnet for all the obvious security reasons.
If, however, the answer is vnc, then I'm compelled to point out that leaves some of us out of the party.
You might try starting discussion on anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com mentioning your use cases for the former 'telnet' installation method. With a positive approach, you might get some best practices or discussion/debate on how best to balance your needs with code maintenance/complexity.
Alternatively, I just filed a bug to update the Fedora 14 installation guide to accurately reflect current installer support for 'telnet' install (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640309). Feel free to follow discussion there.
Thanks, James
Michael Schwendt wrote:
When booting this installation, I arrive at gdm's greeter without any firstboot procedure. No user account is available except root. Firstboot package is installed, but not added to any runlevel. What has gone wrong?
I had this a coupla weeks ago. No sweat, just log in as root, open konsole or go to the command line and run firstboot and set everything up, then reboot, or perhaps just log out and in as the desired user.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:38 -0600, Petrus wrote:
When booting this installation, I arrive at gdm's greeter without any firstboot procedure. No user account is available except root. Firstboot package is installed, but not added to any runlevel. What has gone wrong?
I had this a coupla weeks ago. No sweat, just log in as root, open konsole or go to the command line and run firstboot and set everything up, then reboot, or perhaps just log out and in as the desired user.
Working around it by repairing the installation is doable, of course. I know how to fix firstboot. More interesting is to find out what has gone wrong.
And this is what has happened:
F14 RC3 installer fails to set up the "Installation Repo". That's where I get a "Device or Resource busy" error dialog. And then it sets up http repos _automatically_. Now, since I disabled updates-testing it retrieved packages from a stale http mirror somewhere in Germany. That's where it got the old firstboot package. Paying attention to it, it becomes obvious, as in the final package customisation screen, the "Installation Repo" is missing, and disabled Fedora 14 base repo is impossible because it will result in a warning.
A bug. F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken.
F13 x86_64 installer doesn't suffer from that problem when using exactly the same steps to install it.
A bug. F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken.
F13 x86_64 installer doesn't suffer from that problem when using exactly the same steps to install it.
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 19:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A bug. F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken.
F13 x86_64 installer doesn't suffer from that problem when using exactly the same steps to install it.
ajwerkman and robatino both marked this test as passing in the matrix:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Beta_RC3_Install
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:13:29 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 19:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A bug. F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken.
F13 x86_64 installer doesn't suffer from that problem when using exactly the same steps to install it.
ajwerkman and robatino both marked this test as passing in the matrix:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Beta_RC3_Install
Which test exactly? ajwerkman opened an own thread on this list on Sep 21st ("Harddisk installation fails") and commented on the "Device or resource busy" error message that I've see, too. The only difference being that if the installer can enable an Internet connection _automatically_, it will proceed with a HTTP install from a stale mirror instead of the desired packages on the DVD image: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/627789
With regard to further installation testing, the next thing I tried was NFS install. Installer found and downloaded images/install.img but then "failed unexpectedly [1/1]" before starting the graphical installation. Maybe it couldn't handle the DVD image? I extracted the image to build a full installation tree and verified that the place was NFS-mountable. Installer failed again at the same place.
Next thing I tried was going back to the hard-disk install and then, where it fails with "Device or resource busy" and cannot setup the "Installation Repo", I set up that repo _manually_, pointing it at the installation tree on the NFS server. That worked! Though, it complained about the first package ("setup-..."), which was present and accessible from the shell in the mounted place, but only after clicking "Retry" three times, the installer accepted it and then continued with installing 1175 packages without any further complaints.
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:13:29 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 19:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A bug. F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken.
F13 x86_64 installer doesn't suffer from that problem when using exactly the same steps to install it.
ajwerkman and robatino both marked this test as passing in the matrix:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Beta_RC3_Install
Which test exactly? ajwerkman opened an own thread on this list on
Ah, I see. Sorry, I was a little tired; you said 'F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken', so I didn't quite grok that you were referring to a more complex case than simply booting from the ISO. As you can see, we caught 627789 but considered it not to be a blocker (hard disk install is a Final release criterion).
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:27:21 -0700, Adam wrote:
Ah, I see. Sorry, I was a little tired; you said 'F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken',
It was my summary/conclusion of the longer paragraph above it in the same mail. :)
so I didn't quite grok that you were referring to a more complex case than simply booting from the ISO. As you can see, we caught 627789 but considered it not to be a blocker (hard disk install is a Final release criterion).
I'm not the QA guy here, and I don't want to estimate how popular the hard-disk install method is. I would not ship a Beta release with such a bug.
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 15:38 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:27:21 -0700, Adam wrote:
Ah, I see. Sorry, I was a little tired; you said 'F14 RC3 i386 DVD iso is broken',
It was my summary/conclusion of the longer paragraph above it in the same mail. :)
so I didn't quite grok that you were referring to a more complex case than simply booting from the ISO. As you can see, we caught 627789 but considered it not to be a blocker (hard disk install is a Final release criterion).
I'm not the QA guy here, and I don't want to estimate how popular the hard-disk install method is. I would not ship a Beta release with such a bug.
I replied in another thread. I completed multiple positive test results of the hard drive install test [1] from the Beta. I need a bit more information to understand how the test and your use case differ. See other thread for more details.
Thanks, James
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceHardDrive