Bug 1629628
| Summary: | Default F29 Wallpaper is Solid Black on XFCE/ARM | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | František Zatloukal <fzatlouk> |
| Component: | f29-backgrounds | Assignee: | Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 29 | CC: | awilliam, fzatlouk, gmarr, luya, luya_tfz, robatino, sgallagh |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-11-27 19:29:01 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1517012 | ||
|
Description
František Zatloukal
2018-09-17 08:32:08 UTC
Proposed as a Blocker for 29-beta by Fedora user frantisekz using the blocker tracking app because: The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases. This technically doesn't violate the criteria, as solid black is in fact different than the default desktop wallpaper in F27 and F28. (In reply to Fedora Blocker Bugs Application from comment #1) > Proposed as a Blocker for 29-beta by Fedora user frantisekz using the > blocker tracking app because: > > The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two > stable releases. > > This technically doesn't violate the criteria, as solid black is in fact > different than the default desktop wallpaper in F27 and F28. I'm going to vote -1 blocker pretty much on the above technicality, but this *is* ugly and I'd be willing to accept a fix as a Freeze Exception if we end up spinning another release candidate. Yeah, -1, the criterion is written that way for a reason. It's not "the right background should be there" but "the background shouldn't confuse anyone about this being a stable release". Solid black sure doesn't do that. :P +1 FE. Srsly why are we so bad at this backgrounds are not rocket science Discussed during the 2018-09-17 blocker review meeting: [1] The decision to classify this bug as a "RejectedBlocker" and an "AcceptedFreezeException" was made as the black background does not violate the blocker criteria as it is a different background than the F28 release, however we understand that this is incorrect and accept the bug on a freeze exception status. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2018-09-17/f29-blocker-review.2018-09-17-16.02.txt (In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #0) > Description of problem: > Default wallpaper for newly created user on > Fedora-Xfce-armhfp-29_Beta-1.3-sda.raw.xz is Solid Black. > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > f29-backgrounds-base-29.0.0-3.fc29.noarch > > How reproducible: > Always > > Actual results: > Solid Black wallpaper is the default. Did the XFCE path like "/usr/share/xfce4/backdrops" change? If so, would you provide the new path so I can update the tarball? Thanks. Further details, the default on f28-background for XFCE is set as "/usr/share/xfce4/backdrops/f29.png". Luya: it doesn't seem to be something straightforward - the Xfce live shows the right background for me, and pwhalen said in the meeting it's working for him too. So it seems it's somehow specific to Frantisek's setup. pwhalen and frantisek are going to try and figure out what's going on. Adam: thanks for the input. I am dropping the needinfo request based on that details. Should the report be assigned to xcfe related settings in armhfp architecture? I don't even know if it's just arm vs. x86_64, as pwhalen was testing on ARM also. Maybe just leave it here for now until we have some idea what happened? :) Sure for now. This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |