ok, so I put some dates up at http://wiki.centos.org/KaranbirSingh/5.2
Essentially, 25th is the last date that I am still looking at backlog and mod's etc. After that its basically just all builders go, get the packages into the -qa target. Once that is done - install media.
this plan gives the -qa guys 6 days to look at stuff. Which should be enough ?
- KB
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
ok, so I put some dates up at http://wiki.centos.org/KaranbirSingh/5.2
Essentially, 25th is the last date that I am still looking at backlog and mod's etc. After that its basically just all builders go, get the packages into the -qa target. Once that is done - install media.
this plan gives the -qa guys 6 days to look at stuff. Which should be enough ?
My feeling is that 6 days is going to be to short especially when some of us are going to be at Linuxtag between the 28th and the 31th.
10 days sounds like a more reasonable estimate to me. But it will also depend on how much issues we find. It can go faster but it can also go slower.
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
Regards, Tim
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
You could check the developers blogs at:
Specifically Tim's posting from May 23, 2008.
On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at
ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/
There should be x86_64 version available at
ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64
soon.
-Connie Sieh
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:15:37AM -0500, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at
ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/
There should be x86_64 version available at
ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64
soon.
-Connie Sieh
To the parent poster.. if you're just wanting to test for better graphics support, why not use an eval copy of RHEL 5.2 vs an Alpha of SL?
(If you're needing to test *now* vs in a week or two)
Ray
John Summerfield wrote:
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for graphics"?
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for graphics"?
All of these: Framebuffer in xen works. X works Switching between virtual consoles and X works.
Those work fine on my Thinkcentre P IV running Sl5, and on my HP DC7700 running F8, but SL5 is a basket case.
On the Thinkcentre, "modprobe intelfb" gets framebuffer, I don't recall what, if anything, I had to do to f8, I'm running f9 and that lacks a dom0 kernel (but I have kvm).
Switching works as one would expect on the Thinkcentre (but "fbset --all" is advantageous).
Switching on SL5 gets various, somewhat random, video corruption in VCs and in X.
-
Connie Sieh -
John Summerfield -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Ned Slider -
Ray Van Dolson -
Tim Verhoeven