FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-03-2012, 12:54 PM
Heinz Diehl
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On 03.08.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:

> adn yes i installed the first 3.5 MINUTES after it was built on
> koji on a for me very important machine

An important machine should only be updated (stable or not - whatever)
with a complete and functional backup prior to updating. New code
doesn't only contain improvements, but introduces new bugs and
flaws, too.

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 01:16 PM
Reindl Harald
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

Am 03.08.2012 14:54, schrieb Heinz Diehl:
> On 03.08.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> adn yes i installed the first 3.5 MINUTES after it was built on
>> koji on a for me very important machine
>
> An important machine should only be updated (stable or not - whatever)
> with a complete and functional backup prior to updating. New code
> doesn't only contain improvements, but introduces new bugs and
> flaws, too.

please do not explain me my world :-)

important for me is not important for customers
if it goes down i take it to the office a make a dd-dump back

my point was that i am testing many fedora-packages often long
before updates-testing is seeing them and it doe snot help
much if maintainers say "hm bugreport, however i push to stable"

and YES the 3.5.x currently in F17 stable is a problem
3.4.7 for F16 is a security update

so until someone knows what is going wrong in 3.5 the
right decision would have been build 3.4.7 for F17 too
instead psuh blindly 3.5 out - and after such decisions
someone is wondering why people start ranting?
__________________

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806548
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805317

2012-03-24 13:02:57 EDT 3.3.0-2.fc16
2012-05-03 12:00:53 EDT 3.3.4-3.fc17

nobody cared and fixed more than a month later
3.3.0 was a few days later pushedto stable repos
__________________

i have ALWAYS backups of all important things by having each machine
twice on different locations and sychronous and after 15 years in
this business, the last 4 running over 20 production servers on
Fedora doing all dist-upgrades from F9-F16 on them and having not
lost any bit of data in my life it seems that i know waht i am doing :-)

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 02:02 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:46:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

>
>
> Am 03.08.2012 12:38, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:26:43 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> >
> >> That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
> >> versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
> >> have it in their cache?
> >
> > IMO, the community would be served better if they tried packages from
> > updates-testing early and more often.
>
> this does not help anything if there are fatal bugs reported which
> stops boot like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843826
> and ignored in a way that since yesterday kernel 3.5 is in stable
> repos for F17

1) Ticket history reveals that there has been a very quick response
by davej: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=843826
So, your bug report has not been ignored, albeit reassigned to a
different component without any comment. Hot potatoe...

In retrospect, I cannot tell whether davej should not have submitted
3.5.0-2.fc17 as a test update three days later, knowing that 3.5.0-1.fc17
causes problems. It looks like there is disagreement about the problem
you've reported.

2) You could have left negative karma on the test-update:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11323/kernel-3.5.0-2.fc17

3) Nobody claims that the current way Fedora Testing is done, would
be bullet-proof. IMO, it's a known problem that some updates are rushed
out and should spend much more time in testing.

bodhi - 2012-08-01 18:25:37
This update has been pushed to testing
bodhi - 2012-08-01 21:44:56
This update has reached the stable karma threshold and
will be pushed to the stable updates repository

This is ridiculous! One of Fedora's weak spots. :-(

This particular kernel is also an example of a "karma fight" within bodhi,
with several testers ignoring the guidelines, unfortunately:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines#Previously_reported_ bugs

They voted +1, compensating previous -1 votes. :-(

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.22 0.23 0.25
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 02:14 PM
Reindl Harald
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

Am 03.08.2012 16:02, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:46:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.08.2012 12:38, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:26:43 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>>
>>>> That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
>>>> versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
>>>> have it in their cache?
>>>
>>> IMO, the community would be served better if they tried packages from
>>> updates-testing early and more often.
>>
>> this does not help anything if there are fatal bugs reported which
>> stops boot like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843826
>> and ignored in a way that since yesterday kernel 3.5 is in stable
>> repos for F17
>
> 1) Ticket history reveals that there has been a very quick response
> by davej: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=843826
> So, your bug report has not been ignored, albeit reassigned to a
> different component without any comment. Hot potatoe...

yes, but xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.1-1.fc17.x86_64 works fine
with kernels before 3.5 and the hardware i use in the bugreport
is not exotic

> In retrospect, I cannot tell whether davej should not have submitted
> 3.5.0-2.fc17 as a test update three days later, knowing that 3.5.0-1.fc17
> causes problems. It looks like there is disagreement about the problem
> you've reported.

but the problem is there

i have TWO of this machines, both doe snot boot until "nomodeset"
as kernel-param with 3.5 which results in something like 800x600
resultion on a 25" LED what makes it impossible for me to do
anything after some medical operations on my eyes, even no debug

> This particular kernel is also an example of a "karma fight" within bodhi,
> with several testers ignoring the guidelines, unfortunately:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines#Previously_reported_ bugs
>
> They voted +1, compensating previous -1 votes. :-(

and this is unacceptable behavior

if every koji build would give a link to the karma page
it would be easier to give bad carma, but as long this
is not easy possible it has to be enough that i test a
koji-build long before it reaches updates-testing and
report a bug to prevent make it to stable

holy hell it is even not possible to give "bad karma"
with fedoa-easy-karma in the state i reported the bug

_______________________________________

i had installed on both of my machines any kernel-update since F14
partly ones which never did reach stable from koji

after that having one which does not bot at atll, report it
and become the yum-response below shot time after is a bad joke

3.4 is not EOL proven by the 3.4.7 update for F16 in updates-testing
i even rolled out to production machines last night after internal
tests because it has a security-flag

so the way to go after get a report 3.5.x F17 does not boot on standard
intel-hardware the way to go is hold back 3.5 for F167 stable and
update F17 to 3.4.7 for now

================================================== ================================================== =====================
Package Arch Version Repository
Größe
================================================== ================================================== =====================
Installieren:
kernel x86_64 3.5.0-2.fc17 updates
26 M
kernel-devel x86_64 3.5.0-2.fc17 updates
7.5 M
Aktualisieren:
kernel-headers x86_64 3.5.0-2.fc17 updates
846 k

Vorgangsübersicht
================================================== ================================================== =====================
Installieren 2 Packages
Upgrade 1 Package

Gesamte Downloadgröße: 34 M
Ist dies in Ordnung? [j/N] :n

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 03:50 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:14:20 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

> > 1) Ticket history reveals that there has been a very quick response
> > by davej: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=843826
> > So, your bug report has not been ignored, albeit reassigned to a
> > different component without any comment. Hot potatoe...
>
> yes, but xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.1-1.fc17.x86_64 works fine
> with kernels before 3.5 and the hardware i use in the bugreport
> is not exotic

Let's not talk past eachother. I didn't claim there was no bug.
Only davej could tell why a 3.5.0 kernel test-update has been offered
inspite of this early-warning bug report.

All I understand is that the Fedora test-update process does not guarantee
that the update -- if pushed to stable -- will be free of bugs and free
of regression for everyone.

It will need some project policies to determine whether a single user's
bug report could block an update, or whether maintainers are permitted
to overrule bug reporters => sometimes trade-off decisions are necessary.
Current testing only scratches the surface. It could be that 3.5.0 fixes
many more issues than it causes regression.

> > In retrospect, I cannot tell whether davej should not have submitted
> > 3.5.0-2.fc17 as a test update three days later, knowing that 3.5.0-1.fc17
> > causes problems. It looks like there is disagreement about the problem
> > you've reported.
>
> but the problem is there

Repeating that again and again is nothing else than going in circles.
Sure, this problem affects you personally.
However, more interesting is to figure out what has gone wrong related
to the bug report and how to avoid failures like that in the future
(e.g. with a more restrictive update policy and disabled karma automatism
in bodhi for some packages). Humans make mistakes. It can happen that if
a bug report is not clear and concise, its impact is not recognized.

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.07 0.07 0.09
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 06:14 PM
Joe Zeff
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On 08/03/2012 03:26 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:

That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
have it in their cache?


By default, yum keeps the most recent 3 kernels installed. How often do
you think users need to downgrade past that?

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 08:09 PM
Ian Malone
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On 3 August 2012 19:14, Joe Zeff <joe@zeff.us> wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 03:26 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>
>> That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
>> versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
>> have it in their cache?
>
>
> By default, yum keeps the most recent 3 kernels installed. How often do you
> think users need to downgrade past that?
>

But not the kernel headers, or indeed any other package.

--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 08:41 PM
Joe Zeff
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

On 08/03/2012 01:09 PM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 3 August 2012 19:14, Joe Zeff <joe@zeff.us> wrote:

On 08/03/2012 03:26 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:


That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
have it in their cache?



By default, yum keeps the most recent 3 kernels installed. How often do you
think users need to downgrade past that?



But not the kernel headers, or indeed any other package.



I was under the impression that they were kept until the kernel they
applied to was removed. And, as I understand it, the headers for each
kernel are kept in a separate directory named after the version. If
they're not kept (and my understanding of their location is correct)
then you should be able to get them back if needed, without downgrading
the kernel.

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 08:47 PM
Reindl Harald
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

Am 03.08.2012 22:41, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 08/03/2012 01:09 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 3 August 2012 19:14, Joe Zeff <joe@zeff.us> wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2012 03:26 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That said, maybe the Fedora repos can keep more than one (say 2-3)
>>>> versions of the kernel in case some users need to downgrade and don't
>>>> have it in their cache?
>>>
>>>
>>> By default, yum keeps the most recent 3 kernels installed. How often do you
>>> think users need to downgrade past that?
>>>
>>
>> But not the kernel headers, or indeed any other package.
>>
>
> I was under the impression that they were kept until the kernel they applied to was removed

how comes that you do not look what yum does?

kernel AND kernel-devel are installed in multiple version
kernel-headers are UPDATED only, this is not new

[root@buildserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep kernel
kernel-headers-3.4.7-1.fc16.x86_64
kernel-3.4.4-4.fc16.x86_64
kernel-3.4.7-1.fc16.x86_64


--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Michael Cronenworth
 
Default kernel-headers downgrade failure

Joe Zeff wrote:
> I was under the impression that they were kept until the kernel they
> applied to was removed. And, as I understand it, the headers for each
> kernel are kept in a separate directory named after the version. If
> they're not kept (and my understanding of their location is correct)
> then you should be able to get them back if needed, without downgrading
> the kernel.

kernel-headers != kernel-devel

The kernel-headers package is for GLIBC usage and contains header files
located in /usr/include. Please see "rpm -ql kernel-headers" output. You
only have this package installed if you installed glibc-devel and only
installed glibc-devel if you are compiling software. This is not
installed as part of a default Fedora install. Only one kernel-headers
package is maintained on your system.

The kernel-devel package is for compiling kernel modules and indeed
these development files are in kernel version specific directory names.
You will have a matching kernel-devel package for each kernel package
installed if you have installed kernel-devel. Like kernel-headers
kernel-devel must be manually installed by the user.
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org