Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?

[Terry Barnaby]

On 11/28/2009 10:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 07:31 +0000, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>
>> Some really useful info in How_to_debug_Xorg_problems. I couldn't easily
>> find it from the main wiki home page however. Maybe a link to this page marked
>> "Graphics issues" could be made on the front page (focus users on improving the
>> graphics) ?
>
> That doesn't scale. There's lots of useful pages in the Wiki. We can't
> link to all of them from the front page.
I was thinking of this more as a special Graphics debug push :)

>
> There's a link on the front page which says 'Report a new bug', with the
> word 'bug' a link to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests . The X page is
> linked from that page in the 'Information required for bugs in specific
> components' section. That's two steps from the front page.
>
>> Could improve the title "Graphics problems and bug reporting" ?
>
> We have multiple pages of this type, all named
> How_to_debug_foobar_problems . We found that the best generic naming
> scheme for all such pages.
>
>> and add some search terms such as "Graphics Problems", "3D problems" etc.
>
> I'm not sure you can add search terms to Wiki pages, but if you can,
> then sure.
I would have thought that simply adding the text for these in the page would
have helped searching ?

>
>> Add some info on what to set for "Bugzilla" fields ?
>
> That's not appropriate for subject-specific pages; it's discussed in the
> main 'how to report bugs' page,
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests .
>
>> Maybe the bug reports should include the package version numbers ?
>
> That might be useful in some cases, yeah.
>
>> Maybe some simple user tools could be generated to ease and make bug reporting
>> more useful. Something simple like the following might be useful:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>> date>  bug1
>> lspci | grep VGA>>  bug1
>> (echo -n "kernel: "; uname -r)>>  bug1
>> rpm -q --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}\n" xorg-x11-server-Xorg>>  bug1
>> rpm -q --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}\n" xorg-x11-drv-ati>>  bug1
>> rpm -q --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}\n" mesa-dri-drivers>>  bug1
>> glxinfo | grep "OpenGL renderer string">>  bug1
>
> It's a decent idea, the problem I have with it is you wind up with a
> forest of little scripts with no decent maintenance strategy. I'd rather
> have a more integrated and properly maintained tool, it may grow out of
> abrt in future.
Yes, but that the moment the Graphics bugs seem to have random user inputs
of information. I would have thought that a simple script to help with just 
Graphics bugs would help just now. (I am hoping all of the graphics problems 
will have gone away by next year :) )

>
>> It might be worth including info on how to update from fedora-testing just
>> graphics related packages. Ie add something like:
>> "includepkgs=kernel* xorg-x11-* mesa*"
>> to the "updates-testing" section of fedora-updates-testing.repo and
>> enable the repo ? Also how to revert. Should it state that all tests
>> should be done with fedora-updates-testing packages ?
>
> The automated systems for handling updates usually handle this (when an
> update is submitted to updates-testing that's marked by the maintainer
> as fixing a particular bug, an automatic comment is added to the bug
> with a note that an update is in updates-testing to be tried).
>
>> I notice there is a new xorg-x11-drv-ati. It does look like things are moving :)
>> All we need now is 2 months down the line for Fedora 12.1 to be released with
>> updated anaconda and all updated packages in ISO form so that
>> Joe public can easily install a good working Fedora release ...
>
> We don't do this except for extreme major brokenness which we somehow
> missed during testing, it's not worth the effort involved. Fedora Unity
> does updated re-spins, however they haven't got anything out for F11 yet
> due to some problems, I believe they're looking for extra volunteers.
>

You say that producing a Fedora "12.1" release is "not worth the effort 
involved". Is that truly the case ?
Certainly that is what I always do here. Normally the initial Fedora releases 
contain quite a few issues and there are a flurry of updates. So I use pungi to 
create my own updated release that I use to install on further systems. There is
very little effort in this and, I would have thought, not to much further 
testing effort needed. It is a problem that anaconda updates aren't released 
however. Certainly from the users front I would have thought that this is worth 
the effort. It allows them to install a Fedora system with the core bugs that 
users have found fixed in one pass.