On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
<pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 19:29 -0300, Burkhard Plache wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
>> <pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:49 -0300, Burkhard Plache wrote:
>> >> After inserting the DVD, I get the menu:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Install a new system or upgrade an existing system
>> >> 2) Install system with basic video driver
>> >> 3) Rescue installed system
>> >> 4) Boot from local drive
>> >> 5) Memory test
>> >>
>> >> I select option 1, and after a bit of fast output of the type
>> >
>> > Did you test the DVD before installation? The system explicitly offers
>> > to do this. Always do it once for a newly-burned DVD.
>> > poc
>>
>> The disk worked fine on another (older desktop) system.
>> I will post the specifics of the computer where the problem occurred.
>> - Burkhard
>
> So that would be a "no". The fact that it worked on a different system
> is irrelevant unless the other system is identical, because the exact
> set of RPMs to be installed can easily vary from one system to another
> (differnet kernel architecture, different video card, etc.). Murphy's
> Law dictates that your DVD could have a bad spot just where one system
> reads it and the other doesn't.
>
> Run the disk check before looking any further.
>
> poc
Where/how do I run the test? Option (5) in the menu?
- Burkhard
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Wed Apr 6 13:30:02 2011
Return-path: <desktop-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:36:06 +0300
Received: from bastion02.fedoraproject.org ([209.132.181.3]:48230 helo=bastion.fedoraproject.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <desktop-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org>)
id 1Q7P9i-0000iT-Bo
for tom@linux-archive.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:36:06 +0300
Received: from lists.fedoraproject.org (collab1.vpn.fedoraproject.org [192.168.1.21])
by bastion02.phx2.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995AC110E00;
Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from collab1.fedoraproject.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FC8326782;
Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
Delivered-To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
Received: from smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (smtp-mm2.fedoraproject.org
[66.35.62.164])
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B43326781
for <desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ew0-f45.google.com (mail-ew0-f45.google.com
[209.85.215.45])
by smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638B7E71F9
for <desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so411600ewy.32
for <desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.0.209 with SMTP id 17mr2619083ebc.30.1302087102353;
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from valhalla.rhi.hi.is (valhalla.rhi.hi.is [130.208.69.191])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y7sm293145eeh.0.2011.04.06.03.51.40
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D9C45B8.4010807@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:51:36 +0000
From: =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
<johannbg@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-1.fc15 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Update notification period change
References: <1300469361.1862.4.camel@vaioz> <1302035003.2792.81.camel@flatline>
In-Reply-To: <1302035003.2792.81.camel@flatline>
X-BeenThere: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop
<desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Id: Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop
<desktop.lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop>,
<mailto:desktop-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=unsubscrib e>
List-Archive: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop>
List-Post: <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:desktop-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop>,
<mailto:desktop-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: desktop-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
Errors-To: desktop-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 04/05/2011 08:23 PM, James Laska wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305
>>
>> The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
>> from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
>> immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
>> design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
>> at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
>> issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
>> this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
>> update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
>> is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.
>>
>> We chatted a bit about this during the blocker review meeting today, but
>> all agreed this would be a more appropriate venue for discussion, so I
>> wanted to kick off a thread.
Thoughts?
> Have there been any decisions on this topic
I agree with upstream on this a week notice with 1 day notice of
security updates for GA.
With regards to us ( QA ) I dont see the reason for why we should differ
from this rule since.
A)
Reporters should use yum from cli to update during the development
cycle of the release regardless of *DE and application settings
preferably run it manually on daily bases.
B)
Reporters are already affected by mirror latency with regards to
updates.
If we are going to make exception to this or any other update rule an
*De/application might have during our development cycle I think we
should make sure that all reporters are using the same bits at the same
time as in skip mirrors during development cycle as well but whether we
have enough bandwith to support that that is something that
infrastructure needs answer.
JBG
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Installing F14 from DVD hangs
