docs-qa October 2016

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
73 discussions

[Bug 1276867] New: Packaging:SourceURL#Git Tags is erroneous for GitHub repository
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276867 Bug ID: 1276867 Summary: Packaging:SourceURL#Git Tags is erroneous for GitHub repository Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: packager-guide Severity: high Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com Reporter: francis.andre.kampbell(a)orange.fr QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com Hi The documentation about specifying SourceURL at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL, chapter Git Tags is erroneous setup should be %prep %setup -qn %{name}-%{gittag0} [GitHub] instead of %prep %setup -qn %{name}-%{version} [GitHub] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 985020] New: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985020 Bug ID: 985020 Summary: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for) Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: packager-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com Reporter: bvoperdf21(a)mt2014.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com Description of problem: First I'd like to thank for the awesome documentaions available. Also +1 for the export function (PDF,html-single,...). Looking at the packagers guide I missed some information. It would be nice if you also tell what kind of rpm packages are out there. What I found so far: .rpm .src.rpm .debugsource.... .debuginfo.... For example I still don't know if the debugsource is needed when using gdb for debugging or if the debuginfo package is enough. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):Edition 18.0.1 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1.go to http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Pac… 2.read everything Actual results: no description of the defferent types of rpm packages Expected results: find description of the defferent types of rpm packages and what they are used for/by. Additional info: would be nice to have this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 959626] New: config_name mismatch in mock example
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959626 Bug ID: 959626 Summary: config_name mismatch in mock example Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: packager-guide Severity: low Priority: unspecified Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com Reporter: axilleas(a)archlinux.gr QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: fnadge(a)redhat.com Category: --- Description of problem: In section 2.4.3. Testing a Package with Mock, the last example uses the epel-6-x86_64 config whereas Fedora 18 is referenced above. According to the preamble, the example should read: mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eject-2.1.5-0.1.fc18.src.rpm Link: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Pa… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1246286] New: Outdated websites in "Further information"
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246286 Bug ID: 1246286 Summary: Outdated websites in "Further information" Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: selinux-user-guide Assignee: mprpic(a)redhat.com Reporter: ah(a)riseup.net QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mprpic(a)redhat.com, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: http://selinuxnews.org seems hopelessly outdated. Last post is from 2012. The documentations on the NSA page are all from 2007 or older. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 22, Edition 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1323502] New: Push fr "release-notes" and "welcome page" for f23
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323502 Bug ID: 1323502 Summary: Push fr "release-notes" and "welcome page" for f23 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: publishing-requests Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: jb.holcroft(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Hi there, Can you please push french release-notes for f23 and welcome page please ? I tried by email then ticket, but it looks like I took the wrong group. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites/ticket/382#comment:1 Thanks for your help -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 6

[Bug 1198984] New: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198984 Bug ID: 1198984 Summary: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: razvan.sandu(a)mobexpert.ro QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Hello, Description of problem: Even using the rich-language feature, it is still rather difficult to figure out how to use firewalld on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS system that is used as a router (a "transparent" system). That's because: a. administrators will need *different* sets of rules/restrictions for access to the router itself and to the various services that run beyond the router (using or non using NAT). b. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their policies (ACCEPT or DROP) and when these policies apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. For example, an administrator needs an *easy* method to restrict VNC access *to* the router itself (INPUT), but may want free VNC access to some server located *behind* the router (FORWARD). In the second case, forwarding may (or may not) imply NAT, depending if he goes on the Internet via the external interface or simply goes in another LAN segment beyond the router. c. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their trafic rules ( *exceptions* to ACCEPT or DROP default policies) and when these rules apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. Additional info: Even it is not dynamic, the Shorewall application (http://shorewall.net/) acts as a higher-level language over iptables, offering the same concepts of "zones" for interfaces. Much of its conceptual architecture is directly applicable ("portable") to firewalld, if accepted by developers. Somewhat different from conceptual point of view, the "zones" are "levels of trust surrounding the router", including thr FW zone for the router itself. (unlike firewalld, the shorewall zones have no "sources" or "services" embedded in them). IPv4 and IPv6 zones are completely separated (they actually represent different levels of trust). Administrators may directly define policies, i.e. allow *default* actions to be done when an packet travels from a zone to another (ACCEPT, REJECT). The most sane policy between any two zones is REJECT (with further exceptions defined as rules, see below). Rules are *exceptions to policies* , explicitly defined (based on various criteria such as source IP, destination IP, ports, etc.) Rules may be expressed via predefined (or customised) "macros" (which are the direct equivalent of firewalld's "services"). IPv4 and IPv6 policy and rules are completely separated (IMHO that's good, since the use of global IPv6 addresses pose completely different security problems than NATted & externally firewalled IPv4). Best regards, Răzvan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1008227] New: SSD cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008227 Bug ID: 1008227 Summary: SSD cache Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: docs-requests Keywords: Tracking Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: agk(a)redhat.com, i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com, jeremy(a)goop.org, jreznik(a)redhat.com, kzak(a)redhat.com, nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, rdieter(a)math.unl.edu, rolf(a)rolffokkens.nl, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Depends On: 998543, 999690, 1000817, 1001120, 1003208, 1000078, 1003207 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998543 +++ This is a tracking bug for Change: SSD cache For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/SSD_cache Using recent kernel (3.9 and later) features for (fast) SSD caching of (slow) ordinary hard disks. --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-21 13:35:33 EDT --- I'll build a bcache-tools RPM and a dm-cache-utils rpm (actually bcache-tools is already available here: bcache-tools-20130820-0.1.fc19.src.rpm). I'll follow the procedure as described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-24 11:51:34 EDT --- Tried to create a dmcache-utils package as well (Bug 1000078) but it doesn't look really useful. So I'll focus on bcache-tools first. For that I still need a sponsor. --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-27 06:52:40 EDT --- I closed Bug 1000078 since good userland support requires LVM2 to support dm-cache. Which will happen 'in the future', but F20 doesn't look feasible to me. --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:21:30 EDT --- Create Bug 1003207 (bcache support for dracut) which is not blocking for F20, but probably will be blocking for F21. --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:25:06 EDT --- Create Bug 1003208 (bcache support for anaconda) which is not blocking for F20, but probably will be blocking for F21. --- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-09-09 04:18:18 EDT --- Test day planned: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/415 -------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185336.html Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 6

[Bug 1058066] New: new virt-xml functionality coming from upstream libvirt should be documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058066 Bug ID: 1058066 Summary: new virt-xml functionality coming from upstream libvirt should be documented Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com There is a new tool called `virt-xml` that will end up in Fedora soon[1]. It looks very useful, and should be documented. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-January/msg01226.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 980931] New: The Virtualization Administration Guide Still Uses UNIX System V Commands
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980931 Bug ID: 980931 Summary: The Virtualization Administration Guide Still Uses UNIX System V Commands Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-administration-guide Keywords: Documentation Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: jhradile(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com, me(a)petetravis.com Description of problem: The Virtualization Administration Guide for Fedora 18 [1] still uses UNIX System V commands “service” and “chkconfig”. Although these commands still work and will continue to work in the foreseeable future, users are strongly advised to learn and use the new command that is shipped with systemd and is part of the Fedora distribution since version 15. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-Virtualization_Administration_Guide-18-en-US-1.0-1 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: Read section 14.3, “Starting and stopping the daemon” [2], to learn how to configure the vhostmd service to start automatically at boot time. Actual results: /sbin/chkconfig vhostmd on Expected results: systemctl enable vhostmd.service Additional info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SysVinit_to_Systemd_Cheatsheet ----- [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/Virtualization_Ad… [2] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/Virtualization_Ad… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1095977] New: RFE: static IP assignment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095977 Bug ID: 1095977 Summary: RFE: static IP assignment Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Static IP addresses are crucial for applications like DHCP servers or other infrastructure that can't rely on external assignment. They're also helpful for home users that want to predictably locate their Fedora installation. Explain the use case for this and some alternative methods, then the procedure for setting a setting a static IP using both ifcfg files and graphical methods. Each method could be explained in a separate article; ie "... on the command line" and "... with GNOME" and "... with KDE" and so on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa October 2016