FC5T2 and Development issues, observations, and questions

[Rahul Sundaram]

Nathan Grennan wrote:

>  Overall I am a lot happier with what I experienced installing FC5T2 
> compared to the FC5T1. The difference was night and day. Thank you for 
> all the hard work people.
>
>  Now for a list of issues, observations, and questions.
>
> 1. I noticed that the options to enabled or disable the firewall and 
> selinux are now in firstboot. This created a situation where I filed a 
> bug on httpd about large file support. In the end I figured out it was 
> really selinux, but I had disabled selinux during firstboot. The 
> problem came with the fact I hadn't rebooted. Overall I think the 
> trend to moving everything to firstboot is a bad one, but I don't 
> expect to be able to change the developers minds'.

Kindly enable SELinux and make sure it works rather than disabling it 
during the test releases thereby ensuring that problems dont get fixed. 
Reports bugs and post to this list if required. Firstboot stuff is 
optional. So the installer becomes more streamlined. If you want to 
change the developer's mind you need to provide detailed reasons.

>
> 2. What is up with x86_64 kernels always being SMP enabled? I noticed 
> a comment in the release notes, but no reason given as to why. I would 
> think this could be problematic for debugging unless there is some 
> boot option that makes the kernel act 100% like it would with a UP 
> kernel.

That is the intention. It doesnt make much sense anymore to run x86-64 
system with a UP kernel. I will try and add a more detailed explanation 
to the release notes. Remind me again after before test3 if you see 
problems.

> 3. Where are the x86_64 Xen 3.0 kernels? All I see are i686 in 
> development. I am really looking forward to playing with Xen 3.0 on my 
> dual core x86_64 desktop.

Work in progress to my understanding. see fedora-xen list. It is 
scheduled to be available for FC5 afaik.

>
> 4. What is up with the return of mdadm.conf? I started with a FC4 
> system with a /, /boot, and /home partition. I told anaconda to format 
> / and /boot, while ignoring /home. I told it to ignore home because 
> that is where I backed up all the data. I then finished installing 
> FC5T2. After booting for the first time I setup /home in fstab, it is 
> /dev/md2. I then rebooted and got an error about /dev/md2. After 
> digging into the problem I found udev was not creating the file 
> /dev/md2. I thought of mdadm.conf from the past, and looked in it. 
> Sure enough it existed and mentioned md0 and md1. I added md2, and 
> then /home would mount properly on boot. I thought we had gotten rid 
> of the need for mdadm.conf.

File a bug report.

>
> 5. I am ecstatic to see that the sky2 network card driver made into 
> the development kernels. I had been using netdev kernels, and after 
> installed FC5T2 I was going to have to merge in netdev patches into 
> development kernel.

Ok

>
> 6. I wanted to install galeon.i386 from extras, and it needed to 
> install mozilla.i386. Being that I am running x86_64, mozilla.x86_64 
> was already installed. For some reason mozilla.i386 refused to 
> install, because it said /usr/bin/mozilla and 
> /usr/share/man/man1/mozilla.1.gz conflicted with mozilla.x86_64. Both 
> are mozilla-1.7.12-3. Is this a bug in the package? Is this a bug in 
> rpm? I originally used yum and got the error, but then I tried rpm 
> directly and received the same error message.

It looks like a packaging bug. File it against mozilla and provide all 
this information there.

>
> 7. Frecell doesn't start, and I have already filed a bug, 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177886

Unconfirmed.

>
> 8. Beagled, which is required to use Beagle, won't start. Here is the 
> bug report, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177887

Confirmed.

>
> 9. Currently after recent development updates multiple panel applets 
> crash on login, and one crashes on log out.

Confirmed. File a bug report.

>
> 10. Anaconda's dependency code may be a little screwy. I am pretty 
> sure I had told it to install beagle during the package selection. I 
> think I deselect one of it's dependencies. Instead of installing the 
> dependency anyway so that it could install beagle, it seemed to not 
> install either. Another possibility is that the package selection code 
> is just buggy. I did notice that the selection display was new. I am 
> happy to see it's return after the lack of a decent one in FC5T1.

Can you file a bug report against anaconda with the installation logs in 
/root?


-- 
Rahul 

Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers