| tflink
|
#startmeeting 2011-08-15 Fedora QA Meeting
|
15:00
|
| zodbot
|
Meeting started Mon Aug 15 15:00:35 2011 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
|
15:00
|
| zodbot
|
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
|
15:00
|
| tflink
|
#topic roll call
|
15:00
|
| * kparal here
|
15:00
|
| * athmane is here
|
15:00
|
| * mkrizek is present
|
15:01
|
| tflink
|
kparal, athmane, mkrizek, pschindl: welcome
|
15:01
|
| adamw
|
yo
|
15:02
|
| adamw
|
sorry folks, was on hairball patrol...
|
15:02
|
| tflink
|
adamw: that sounds like fun
|
15:02
|
| * tflink waits another couple minutes to see if we get more people
|
15:03
|
| adamw
|
sorry for no meeting announcement, either, was focusing on alpha
|
15:04
|
| tflink
|
no worries, I was in the same boat :)
|
15:05
|
| * tflink forgot until this morning
|
15:05
|
| tflink
|
ok, let's get this started
|
15:05
|
| tflink
|
#topic Previous Meeting Follow-Up
|
15:05
|
| tflink
|
AFAIK, we don't have anything to follow up on
|
15:05
|
| tflink
|
is there anything I'm missing?
|
15:05
|
| adamw
|
were there any #action items last week?
|
15:06
|
| * jskladan lurks in
|
15:06
|
| adamw
|
the 'previous meeting followup' is mostly a checkin to make sure #actions were...actioned
|
15:06
|
| tflink
|
adamw to split up 728891 into separate bugs and assign them appropriately
|
15:06
|
| adamw
|
done!
|
15:06
|
| adamw
|
that was the file conflict bug, it's been solved for a while now
|
15:06
|
| tflink
|
#info 728891 successfully split up into separate bugs
|
15:07
|
| tflink
|
that's the only one I'm seeing from last week
|
15:07
|
| adamw
|
okay
|
15:07
|
| tflink
|
on to the next topic
|
15:07
|
| tflink
|
#topic Current Alpha Blockers
|
15:07
|
| tflink
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
|
15:08
|
| tflink
|
we have 2 new proposed blockers that it'd be nice to go over quick
|
15:08
|
| tflink
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria
|
15:09
|
| tflink
|
#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730415
|
15:09
|
| tflink
|
#info kickstart with user --name=blah results in traceback
|
15:09
|
| tflink
|
talking with bcl on friday, this should be fixed soon
|
15:10
|
| tflink
|
IIRC, a patch has been posted to anaconda-devel
|
15:10
|
| adamw
|
this doesn't really make any blocker criteria
|
15:10
|
| tflink
|
nope, probably not
|
15:10
|
| adamw
|
we don't have a specific 'kickstart install should work' criterion but if we did i bet it'd be beta
|
15:10
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - Does not hit any alpha release criteria but it is kind of ugly. Tested fix would be accepted.
|
15:11
|
| adamw
|
i'm not sure about nth at this point
|
15:11
|
| tflink
|
ack/nack/patch?
|
15:11
|
| adamw
|
that'd involve respinning anaconda again to do nothing but fix this...
|
15:12
|
| Southern_Gentlem
|
can you stay its a beta blocker
|
15:12
|
| adamw
|
do we have an anaconda dev in the house?
|
15:12
|
| * tflink thought that there was another bug that they wanted to fix
|
15:12
|
| adamw
|
Southern_Gentlem: it can be proposed as one and then we'd discuss it on friday
|
15:12
|
| tflink
|
oh, it's proposed nth
|
15:12
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker
|
15:13
|
| clumens
|
THUD
|
15:14
|
| adamw
|
ack for that
|
15:14
|
| adamw
|
clumens: so we're split on whether 730415 should be nth
|
15:14
|
| adamw
|
is there any other reason to rebuild anaconda at this point?
|
15:14
|
| clumens
|
no
|
15:14
|
| tflink
|
729599 would be the other one, but that's nth too
|
15:15
|
| clumens
|
right
|
15:15
|
| tflink
|
and we were having trouble reproducing that on friday
|
15:15
|
| tflink
|
well, in the way that we were fearing anyways
|
15:15
|
| tflink
|
any other votes?
|
15:16
|
| adamw
|
so...yeah, i'm kinda -1 nth at this point. anyone else have a vote?
|
15:16
|
| clumens
|
i'm fine with kicking it on down to final
|
15:16
|
| * tflink is taking that as an ack so that we can move on
|
15:16
|
| tflink
|
#agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker
|
15:16
|
| tflink
|
#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729500
|
15:17
|
| tflink
|
#info Error while installing updates on Fedora 16 Alpha RC3
|
15:17
|
| tflink
|
adamw: any luck reproducing this?
|
15:17
|
| adamw
|
not seen it again
|
15:17
|
| adamw
|
and no-one else has either
|
15:17
|
| adamw
|
so let's reject it for now
|
15:17
|
| tflink
|
rejected blocker?
|
15:17
|
| adamw
|
and if others hit it for rc4...add it again
|
15:17
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again.
|
15:18
|
| tflink
|
ack/nack/patch?
|
15:18
|
| adamw
|
ack
|
15:18
|
| * tflink would prefer to have 3 votes ...
|
15:19
|
| tflink
|
#agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again.
|
15:19
|
| * maxamillion is here ... late but here
|
15:19
|
| tflink
|
maxamillion: welcome
|
15:20
|
| tflink
|
#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730438
|
15:20
|
| maxamillion
|
tflink: thanks :)
|
15:20
|
| tflink
|
#info SSL CA errors when reporting an installer bug to bugzilla
|
15:20
|
| * adamw notes once more for the record that you don't need to pass an exam to vote on blockers
|
15:20
|
| tflink
|
this is something that I hit on friday - it was covered up by another libreport bug
|
15:20
|
| adamw
|
being an idiot on the internet with an opinion is enough
|
15:20
|
| adamw
|
right, nice catch tflink
|
15:20
|
| maxamillion
|
adamw: lol
|
15:20
|
| pjones
|
but maybe we should start?
|
15:21
|
| tflink
|
#info fix available, test boot.iso is being built for karma now
|
15:21
|
| adamw
|
if we haven't formally voted yet: +1 blocker, prevents bug reporting from anaconda (again)
|
15:21
|
| * maxamillion isn't entirely sure how to respond that
|
15:21
|
| adamw
|
maxamillion: i recommend blithely ignoring it
|
15:21
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate
|
15:21
|
| tflink
|
information included.
|
15:21
|
| adamw
|
ack
|
15:21
|
| maxamillion
|
adamw: rgr that
|
15:21
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included
|
15:21
|
| tflink
|
ack/nack/patch ?
|
15:22
|
| tflink
|
don't make me start calling people out by name :)
|
15:22
|
| adamw
|
ack. with an extra t.
|
15:22
|
| adamw
|
(no, not 'tack'.)
|
15:22
|
| tflink
|
kparal, jskladan: votes?
|
15:22
|
| rbergeron
|
attack?
|
15:22
|
| jsmith
|
ACK
|
15:23
|
| tflink
|
finally :)
|
15:23
|
| adamw
|
ubuntu is attacking?!
|
15:23
|
| adamw
|
man the defences!
|
15:23
|
| tflink
|
#agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included
|
15:23
|
| rbergeron
|
OMG
|
15:23
|
| tflink
|
OK, proposed NTH time
|
15:23
|
| * Viking-Ice joins in
|
15:23
|
| * kparal was slow to vote
|
15:23
|
| tflink
|
#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729599
|
15:23
|
| adamw
|
tflink, to the Negative Review Cannon!
|
15:23
|
| tflink
|
#info PartitionException: msdos disk labels do not support partition names.
|
15:23
|
| adamw
|
rbergeron, to the FUD Dispenser!
|
15:23
|
| rbergeron
|
adamw: only if it has a flip-back yead
|
15:24
|
| rbergeron
|
head
|
15:24
|
| adamw
|
you got it
|
15:24
|
| * bcl pokes his head in
|
15:24
|
| * maxamillion is pretty confident he missed something
|
15:24
|
| tflink
|
I think that I'm -1 nth on this one for alpha - the impact doesn't seem to be quite as bad as we first thought
|
15:24
|
| adamw
|
oh, right, this one...
|
15:24
|
| jsmith
|
+1 for NTH, -1 for blocker
|
15:24
|
| jsmith
|
(alpha blocker, that is)
|
15:24
|
| adamw
|
tflink: is ther news that's not in the bug?
|
15:24
|
| tflink
|
adamw: it was your testing, you tell me
|
15:25
|
| adamw
|
ah
|
15:25
|
| adamw
|
well, i don't wanna rely too much on my little test
|
15:25
|
| * athmane is sorry, need to go
|
15:25
|
| tflink
|
I'm not too strongly -1
|
15:25
|
| tflink
|
athmane: thanks for joining us
|
15:25
|
| adamw
|
if bcl is sufficiently worried about the impact of this one, i'm still +1
|
15:25
|
| Viking-Ice
|
this happens only on upgrade right ?
|
15:25
|
| tflink
|
the theory is that it could happen on clean install, too
|
15:26
|
| adamw
|
yeah
|
15:26
|
| Viking-Ice
|
with msdos partition ?
|
15:26
|
| bcl
|
It happens any time you have a msdos labeled disk with the /boot partition on it
|
15:26
|
| tflink
|
if you have msdos disk labels
|
15:26
|
| adamw
|
the theory is that any install to a disk with an msdos disk label, which isn't being entirely reformatted, could be in trouble
|
15:26
|
| Viking-Ice
|
which we clean out if default partitioning scheme is chosen in anaconda ?
|
15:26
|
| adamw
|
i tried a test to confirm this and the install worked, but it's entirely possible i screwed something up.
|
15:26
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: default depends on exactly what's on the disk already, i think
|
15:27
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
|
15:27
|
| tflink
|
ack/nack/patch?
|
15:27
|
| tflink
|
whoops, that was supposed to say AcceptedNTH
|
15:27
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 729599 - AcceptedNTH - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
|
15:27
|
| adamw
|
bcl: how messy is the fix for this?
|
15:27
|
| clumens
|
so, i'll be doing an anaconda after all?
|
15:28
|
| clumens
|
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2011-August/msg00181.html
|
15:28
|
| clumens
|
looks straightforward to me
|
15:28
|
| adamw
|
yeah...
|
15:28
|
| adamw
|
lemme see, what's the worst that could possibly happen...
|
15:29
|
| adamw
|
if the boot partition doesn't get a name, would it still work?
|
15:29
|
| bcl
|
adamw: the fix is clean, I just had to check to make sure the disk label supports the feature before using it.
|
15:29
|
| adamw
|
(i.e. if somehow that conditional was never satisfied)
|
15:29
|
| bcl
|
yes, everything would probably be fine. The change was primarily for EFI
|
15:30
|
| adamw
|
okay...
|
15:30
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I'm +1 nth if there is no risk of breaking partitioning if there is -1 nth
|
15:30
|
| adamw
|
i guess, based on the simplicity of the fix, +1 nth
|
15:30
|
| adamw
|
so yeah, new anaconda
|
15:30
|
| maxamillion
|
+1 nth
|
15:30
|
| bcl
|
there is always risk. the question is -- is the risk better to take in Alpha or Beta?
|
15:30
|
| tflink
|
ok, sounds like we have an agreement
|
15:30
|
| clumens
|
can do.
|
15:30
|
| tflink
|
#agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
|
15:30
|
| * tflink will wait for new anaconda build before putting out a test boot.iso
|
15:31
|
| clumens
|
bcl: i thin this is a low risk change.
|
15:31
|
| tflink
|
ok, accepted blocker time
|
15:31
|
| tflink
|
wait, do we need to do this?
|
15:31
|
| adamw
|
prolly worth reviewing the rpm fix
|
15:32
|
| tflink
|
eh, there's only one and that'll come up a little later (rpm issue)
|
15:32
|
| tflink
|
or we can do it now :)
|
15:32
|
| tflink
|
#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728707
|
15:32
|
| tflink
|
#info on package upgrade RPM is removing empty directories accidentally
|
15:33
|
| adamw
|
so, good news, there's a 'fix'
|
15:33
|
| adamw
|
bad news, it involves pulling in a medium-size bunch of package rebuilds
|
15:33
|
| adamw
|
still, if we gotta do it, we gotta do it
|
15:33
|
| tflink
|
yep
|
15:33
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yup
|
15:33
|
| * adamw is still not entirely sure why panu doesn't think rpm should be fixed.
|
15:33
|
| maxamillion
|
what are the chances that the fix could break the package rebuilds? or cause $other?
|
15:34
|
| tflink
|
it sounds like rpmbuild was part of the problem
|
15:34
|
| adamw
|
the fix in rpm? negligible
|
15:34
|
| maxamillion
|
adamw: cool
|
15:34
|
| adamw
|
but in general, every time you rebuild a package even with no changes, there's a small-but-existent chance of it screwing _something_ up
|
15:34
|
| maxamillion
|
well ... ture
|
15:35
|
| maxamillion
|
true even
|
15:35
|
| tflink
|
so do we want to try pushing for a fix in rpm?
|
15:35
|
| maxamillion
|
bleh .... typing is hard
|
15:35
|
| adamw
|
i just poked the bug with that. but panu already said the right thing is the rebuilds, and we're short on time
|
15:35
|
| tflink
|
very true
|
15:36
|
| maxamillion
|
what would the estimated ETA on the rebuilds be?
|
15:36
|
| adamw
|
they're all done
|
15:36
|
| maxamillion
|
oh
|
15:36
|
| Viking-Ice
|
;)
|
15:36
|
| adamw
|
need karma, but that's about all
|
15:36
|
| adamw
|
so we should just spin rc4 with the rebuilds of all packages on the dvd, and hope
|
15:36
|
| maxamillion
|
then +1 to the rpm fix
|
15:36
|
| * maxamillion likes his package manager to be as bug free as possible
|
15:37
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, yup
|
15:37
|
| jsmith
|
+1 to the rpm fix as well
|
15:37
|
| tflink
|
proposed #agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds
|
15:37
|
| Viking-Ice
|
ack
|
15:38
|
| adamw
|
ack
|
15:38
|
| tflink
|
#agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds
|
15:38
|
| jsmith
|
ACK
|
15:38
|
| tflink
|
ok, done with the bug review party for now
|
15:38
|
| adamw
|
great
|
15:38
|
| tflink
|
#topic RC3 Testing Status
|
15:38
|
| adamw
|
so, bcl and clumens, if we could get a new anaconda build asap that'd be great, then we can compose rc4 and get to testing
|
15:38
|
| tflink
|
I'm probably not the best person for this update, anyone care to take it on?
|
15:39
|
| adamw
|
well, it's pretty straightforward...we covered most everything that needs covering, and hit some bugs that should be fixed in rc4
|
15:39
|
| adamw
|
i guess the only thing missing is kde desktop validation
|
15:39
|
| tflink
|
at this point, might as well wait for RC4
|
15:40
|
| clumens
|
yeah i can do that real quick
|
15:40
|
| tflink
|
#info still missing KDE desktop validation, may wait for RC4 for those tests
|
15:40
|
| tflink
|
anything else RC3 related?
|
15:41
|
| tflink
|
then moving on ...
|
15:41
|
| adamw
|
any issues anyone's worried about that haven't been reviewed as blockers?
|
15:41
|
| adamw
|
speak now or forever hold thy peace...
|
15:41
|
| tflink
|
#topic Fedora 16 Alpha RC4 ready-ness
|
15:42
|
| tflink
|
As I understand it, we're pretty much ready for RC4
|
15:42
|
| tflink
|
just waiting on an anaconda build and hopefully some karma
|
15:42
|
| tflink
|
I assume that the plan is to spin up RC4 today and get testing
|
15:43
|
| adamw
|
yeah
|
15:43
|
| adamw
|
definitely
|
15:43
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yup
|
15:43
|
| adamw
|
we're pretty tight on time; we need at least alpha validation tests complete by wednesday
|
15:43
|
| tflink
|
#info next go/no-go meeting is on Wednesday (2011-08-17)
|
15:43
|
| adamw
|
given all these damn rebuilds landing, and changed anaconda, we should try to avoid relying on pulled-forward rc3 tests as much as possible
|
15:43
|
| * jsmith agrees with adamw
|
15:44
|
| tflink
|
#info due to all of the rebuilds needed for RC4, we should avoid carrying forward results from RC3
|
15:44
|
| adamw
|
note that the Alpha, Beta, Final column on the validation matrix itself is somewhat out of whack - if in doubt, criteria take priority
|
15:44
|
| adamw
|
(so if something's marked 'Alpha' on the matrix but the matching release criterion is Beta, then it's a Beta test and we should fix the table at some point)
|
15:45
|
| tflink
|
alpha, beta ... they're all just greek letters :-D
|
15:45
|
| adamw
|
if robatino's around when rc4 compose is done he'll do the announcing, otherwise myself or tflink will take care of it
|
15:46
|
| tflink
|
#action robatino, adamw or tflink - do RC4 announcement once the compose is complete
|
15:46
|
| tflink
|
overall, I think that the message is - be ready for testing. Let's not slip alpha another week
|
15:47
|
| tflink
|
not that anyone needed reminding
|
15:47
|
| tflink
|
but I think that about covers it for RC4 stuff until it's released
|
15:47
|
| tflink
|
any concerns with RC4 that we didn't cover?
|
15:47
|
| Viking-Ice
|
nope not from me
|
15:48
|
| tflink
|
OK, I think that covers the agenda that I had in mind
|
15:48
|
| tflink
|
#topic Open Discussion
|
15:48
|
| tflink
|
any other topics that should be discussed?
|
15:48
|
| adamw
|
i don't see anything else major upcoming
|
15:49
|
| * jskladan needs to catch the bus home. see you tomorrow gang!
|
15:49
|
| adamw
|
there's a test day slot thursday but it's empty
|
15:49
|
| adamw
|
cya jskladan!
|
15:49
|
| adamw
|
which is probably a good thing given all of this
|
15:49
|
| adamw
|
do we have an autoqa update from anyone?
|
15:49
|
| kparal
|
do we have an autoqa update at all? :)
|
15:49
|
| tflink
|
we don't have much to say
|
15:50
|
| kparal
|
we releases 0.6.1
|
15:50
|
| adamw
|
have you all beek working on Project Colada? :)
|
15:50
|
| kparal
|
that fixes some bugs
|
15:50
|
| kparal
|
*released
|
15:50
|
| adamw
|
cool
|
15:50
|
| kparal
|
and planned 0.7
|
15:50
|
| tflink
|
#info AutoQA 0.6.1 released and deployed to fix some bugs
|
15:50
|
| kparal
|
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=0.7.0
|
15:50
|
| adamw
|
sounds like everything's rolling
|
15:51
|
| adamw
|
what are the major goals for 0.7.0?
|
15:51
|
| tflink
|
#info AutoQA 0.7.0 has been planned, work is progressing
|
15:51
|
| kparal
|
we would like to concentrate on the infrastructure for the next release
|
15:51
|
| kparal
|
resultsdb and staging/testing are the general themes I believe
|
15:51
|
| kparal
|
adamw: wasn't it Project Coconut?
|
15:52
|
| adamw
|
it has many names
|
15:53
|
| kparal
|
I see
|
15:53
|
| adamw
|
but only one goal
|
15:53
|
| * kparal imagining it vividly
|
15:53
|
| kparal
|
any other thoughts on autoqa updates?
|
15:54
|
| tflink
|
we need a package review (soon to be 2)
|
15:54
|
| tflink
|
and a sposor for mkrizek
|
15:54
|
| kparal
|
hongqing says he'll provide a new test for autoqa soon - mediakit_sanity. it should test ISO images of Branched release
|
15:54
|
| tflink
|
s/sposor/sponsor
|
15:54
|
| adamw
|
the package review thing is looking like a bit of a roadblock
|
15:54
|
| adamw
|
i've been distracted by alpha, but one thought i had was to keep it in the family
|
15:55
|
| kparal
|
there has been some progress for mkrizek I believe. the future now looks brighter
|
15:55
|
| mkrizek
|
tflink: good news, I might get a sponsor this week hopefully
|
15:55
|
| adamw
|
we can exchange (or just provide) reviews within the qa group; we have, or should have, enough packagers to do that
|
15:55
|
| * tflink makes note to remember that
|
15:55
|
| kparal
|
adamw: the roadblock was the packaging _sponsor_ I believe
|
15:56
|
| kparal
|
they are scarce
|
15:56
|
| tflink
|
but it sounds like mkrizek might have found one
|
15:56
|
| * nb is a sponsor
|
15:57
|
| kparal
|
here we go, remember that nick, mkrizek :)
|
15:58
|
| nb
|
mkrizek, have you already found someone? or are you still looking?
|
15:58
|
| tflink
|
cool, progress :)
|
15:58
|
| * kparal has dinner on the table. let's speed it up! :)
|
15:59
|
| mkrizek
|
nb: I might, I have been contacted with one
|
15:59
|
| adamw
|
two is better than one...
|
15:59
|
| nb
|
mkrizek, ok, if that doesn't work, let me know
|
15:59
|
| mkrizek
|
nb: ok, thanks!
|
15:59
|
| adamw
|
thanks a bunch nb
|
15:59
|
| nb
|
adamw, no problem
|
15:59
|
| adamw
|
do we have anyone else who needs sponsoring?
|
15:59
|
| * tflink was already sponsored but can't quite do reveiws yet
|
16:00
|
| tflink
|
odd situation
|
16:00
|
| nb
|
tflink, you can't?
|
16:00
|
| adamw
|
well, reviews shouldn't be a big deal
|
16:01
|
| adamw
|
i can do those if no-one else can
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
nb: long story short, I got sponsored to take on a to-be-orphaned package and I still have a mentor
|
16:01
|
| adamw
|
let's not let kparal's dinner go cold...
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
adamw: where were you when I was waiting 4 months for a review on py.test?
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
:)
|
16:01
|
| * kparal already moved his notebook to kitchen, no worries
|
16:01
|
| nb
|
tflink, oh ok
|
16:02
|
| tflink
|
anyhow, unless we have other topics I'm setting the #endmeeting fuse for 5 minutes
|
16:02
|
| adamw
|
tflink: on project colada!
|
16:02
|
| tflink
|
nb: so its not so much can't as shouldn't until I have more experience
|
16:02
|
| tflink
|
any volunteers to do the bug updating?
|
16:04
|
| adamw
|
i can, if no-one else wants to
|
16:04
|
| adamw
|
dgilmore: i'll do an rc4 recipe update on the trac ticket once the anaconda update is up
|
16:05
|
| adamw
|
then we can all get to testing...
|
16:05
|
| tflink
|
adamw: think it's worth the effort to get a boot.iso out for karma on lorax, anacanda etc. ?
|
16:06
|
| tflink
|
or can we just pull all that in to RC4 without karma
|
16:06
|
| dgilmore
|
adamw: ok, what about rpm?
|
16:06
|
| adamw
|
tflink: probably worth a sanity test, yeah.
|
16:06
|
| adamw
|
dgilmore: the fix for the rpm issue does not appear to be in rpm.
|
16:06
|
| tflink
|
k, just making sure I wasn't wasting my time :)
|
16:06
|
| adamw
|
dgilmore: the fix is to rebuild all the affected packages, it seems
|
16:06
|
| dgilmore
|
tflink: we can pull it in without, but it will not hurt to get it
|
16:06
|
| adamw
|
dgilmore: so we'll have to pull all those rebuilds.
|
16:06
|
| dgilmore
|
adamw: fun
|
16:06
|
| tflink
|
alrighty, thanks for coming everyone
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
time to test the crap out of alpha RC4
|
16:07
|
| * tflink will send out minutes shortly
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
#endmeeting
|
16:07
|
