On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 17:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:28 PM Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 08:20 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > I would like for us to have some testing criteria around gaming and > > > Steam so that we can ensure we're offering a working gaming experience > > > in Fedora Linux releases. This is motivated by the issue we had in the > > > F37 cycle where glibc broke popular multiplayer games[1]. I was > > > reminded of this when I launched Steam today on F38 and zenity > > > crashed[2]. > > > > > > I would like to propose the following criterion for Steam itself as a > > > Beta Blocker bug: > > > "Steam MUST be able to be installed and have its basic functionality > > > work with no visible errors. Basic functionality for Steam includes: > > > logging into a Steam account and installing a Windows/Proton game and > > > a Linux/SteamOS native game." > > > > > > For gaming itself, I would like to propose the following criterion as > > > a Final Blocker bug: > > > "Steam games identified as Deck Verified by ProtonDB.com (see > > > https://www.protondb.com/explore?selectedFilters=whitelisted) MUST > > > launch and let the user play the game. This criterion is not intended > > > to judge performance, merely accessibility. At least one > > > Windows/Proton game and one Linux/SteamOS native game MUST be tested > > > in this manner." > > > > > > Now, the tricky issue here is how to wordsmith the check for > > > anti-cheat systems. I don't want to specifically call out just EAC, > > > but I also don't know of a good mix of games with different > > > anti-cheats. The important thing is to catch regressions and see if > > > it's something we can resolve. In the EAC case from F37, it was easy > > > for us to deal with, but if it's genuinely broken in a way we can't > > > deal with it on the Fedora side, I don't know what we're supposed to > > > do, so I'm wary of doing some kind of blocker criterion for that. > > > > > > I'd also like this to be imposed on both release-blocking desktops: > > > GNOME and KDE Plasma. > > > > > > Any ideas welcome and appreciated! > > > > I'm against this. We have never blocked the OS on proprietary third- > > party applications. I don't think it's a path we want to go down. > > > > I'm in favour of testing common third-party stuff before release and > > fixing it if we can, but we have always said we will not block Fedora > > on this, and I don't think we should change that. > > > > (I did actually test Steam, but I used the flatpak version, not RPM...) > > > > I'm fixing the zenity bug, BTW. > > Is there a way we can add regular testing for it without making it a > blocker then? Sure, we have lots of these. It's what the "Optional" milestone in the test matrices means: any test whose milestone is "Optional" is...optional. You can write up a test case (or more than one) for this and propose adding it to the desktop matrix as an Optional row (or, well, probably several rows), I think that would be fine. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
