docs-qa July 2016

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
78 discussions

[Bug 1358932] New: How to create an USB stick with overlay persistence with graphical tools?
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358932 Bug ID: 1358932 Summary: How to create an USB stick with overlay persistence with graphical tools? Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: razvan.sandu(a)mobexpert.ro QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Hello, Description of problem: The online guide at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB#Data_persiste… which is installation-related, describes how to create a Fedora bootable USB stick using the graphical tool liveusb-creator with overlay persistence. However, the current graphical tool available in Fedora (called "Fedora Media Writer") offers no obvious option (button, slider, etc.) for adding an overlay persistence space to the official .iso image. Actual results: The current graphical tool offers no option of adding overlay persistence to an .iso image that is written on an USB stick. Expected results: The tool should offer such an option, in order to easily create USB bootable sticks with persistence. The existing documentation should be consistent with the actual tool. Additional info: IMHO, adopting and documenting a STANDARD set of tools (graphical & CLI), as DISTRO-INDEPENDENT (cross-distro) as possible, for the (easy) creation of bootable USB sticks (including overlay) is the way to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 3

[Bug 1314499] New: Typo in Section 5.4.8: Installation Destination
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314499 Bug ID: 1314499 Summary: Typo in Section 5.4.8: Installation Destination Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: hrusjos(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: There is, apparently, a word missing before "Add a disk button" in the para starting with "The Specialized & Network Disks section below shows advanced network storage..." Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Please see line #39 of the StorageSpoke.xml Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: to search for network storage devices <guilabel>Add a disk</guilabel> button Expected results: to search for network storage devices press <guilabel>Add a disk</guilabel> button and proceed with <xref linkend="sect-installation-gui-installation-destination" />. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1344465] New: Copyright should be 2016 - can we also have translation of license ?
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Feb '18

19 Feb '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344465 Bug ID: 1344465 Summary: Copyright should be 2016 - can we also have translation of license ? Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: release-notes Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: jb.holcroft(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co when building f24 release notes, the result is "Copyright © 2014 Fedora Project Contributors." the result should be " © 2016" btw, is there any reason not to translate this license ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1356760] New: Installation guide contains irrelevant statement.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356760 Bug ID: 1356760 Summary: Installation guide contains irrelevant statement. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Severity: low Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: worley(a)theworld.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: In the installation guide for Fedora 24, chapter 2, section "Media Types", there is the statement "In Fedora 21, the DVD option is only available in the Fedora Server flavor." As this installation guide is for Fedora 24, this sentence is irrelevant. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 24 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/24/html/Installation_Guide/chap… 2. Go to section "Media Types", subsection "DVD Image". 3. This is the 2nd sentence in the subsection. Actual results: Contains the sentence "In Fedora 21, the DVD option is only available in the Fedora Server flavor." Expected results: There is no sentence concerning Fedora 21. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1354201] New: SUSE Studio ImageWriter probably shouldn' t be recommended
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354201 Bug ID: 1354201 Summary: SUSE Studio ImageWriter probably shouldn't be recommended Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/24/html/Installation_Guide/sect… Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 23 Fedora 24 Actual results: Docs says "Download and run the SUSE Studio ImageWriter or Rawrite32." The ImageWriter link URL is https://github.com/downloads/openSUSE/kiwi/ImageWriter.exe The problems are: - I can't verify the provenance of the binary downloaded from that link. I get 404 errors when I try to get to each parent directory, so I have no idea what this binary really is, who produced it, how old it is, what version it is, etc. I think recommending users download an almost random binary on Windows of all OS's probably isn't good advice. - openSUSE considers ImageWriter unmaintained. "We used to have SUSE Studio ImageWriter compiled for windows, but this is not maintained anymore." https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Create_a_Live_USB_stick_using_Windows And they point to a different URL for that project than we do, which hasn't had a pull request or issue responded to in over a year. Nevertheless the code there is probably newer than the binary we're offering to download. http://www.github.com/openSUSE/imagewriter Expected results: Let's just recommend Rawrite32, it's recently updated and it looks like the binaries are signed. http://www.netbsd.org/~martin/rawrite32/ Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1350454] New: Error on Shasum Check for Mac OS
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350454 Bug ID: 1350454 Summary: Error on Shasum Check for Mac OS Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Severity: low Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: wk4(a)tuta.io QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co External Bug ID: Red Hat Bugzilla 1282228 Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 24 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. open terminal 2. $ cd ~/Downloads/ 3. shasum -a 256 -c *CHECKSUM Actual results: shasum: Fedora-Workstation-24-x86_64-CHECKSUM: no properly formatted SHA1 checksum lines found Expected results: shasum: Fedora-Workstation-netinst-x86_64-24-1.2.iso: Fedora-Workstation-netinst-x86_64-24-1.2.iso: FAILED open or read Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso: OK shasum: WARNING: 1 listed file could not be read Additional info: Tested on Mac OS X 10.11.5 (15F34) Submitting a separate report as the bug (1282228) mentions both Mac OS and Ubuntu. I do not have a fix for Ubuntu, only Mac OS. How to fix: I recommend replacing the step 3 in the guide with "$ grep '^SHA256' *-CHECKSUM | awk -F '[()=]' '{ print $4 " " $2 }' | shasum -a 256 -c". Credit (Fredy): https://web.archive.org/web/20160627132229/https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1318103] New: LiveUSB Creator as primary downloadable
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318103 Bug ID: 1318103 Summary: LiveUSB Creator as primary downloadable Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Currently LiveUSB Creator is not mentioned at all in official documentation for any platform. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Installation_Guide/sect… First, the two Windows platform recommendations in the documentation are odd because they're neither created nor tested within Fedora. Second, Live USB Creator is planned to be the primary/most prominent download method for Fedora 24 for Fedora (maybe other Linux distros as well), Windows, and possibly OS X if it arrives in time. So documentation should be updated to reflect this. Change description: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet#LiveUSBCreator_as_Prim… Bug tracking: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310542 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 3

[Bug 1312621] New: dhcpd instructions are unclear for PXE boot
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312621 Bug ID: 1312621 Summary: dhcpd instructions are unclear for PXE boot Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: danofsatx(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Section 10.2 of the Installation Guide gives the example setup for dhcpd to enable a PXE boot / network installation. The example is unclear between paragraphs 2 and 4 in that the text in paragraph 4 does not match up with the text in paragraph 2, and there are no clear instructions as to where it goes in the example file. After trial and error and comparing with the F20 instructions, I was able to get dhcpd started again. I suggest modifying paragraph 4 to include the whole file as such: option arch code 93 = unsigned integer 16; subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 { option domain-name-servers 192.168.1.1; option routers 192.168.1.1; range 192.168.1.11 192.168.1.50; authoritative; default-lease-time 600; max-lease-time 7200; ddns-update-style none; if option arch = 00:07 { filename "uefi/shim.efi"; } else { filename "pxelinux.0"; } next-server 192.168.1.2; } -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1309111] New: Package environment ID required in kickstart
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309111 Bug ID: 1309111 Summary: Package environment ID required in kickstart Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: cspicer(a)redhat.com Reporter: dgallowa(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Documentation states a package environment's name can be specified in a kickstart when the ID is required instead. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/Installation_Guide/sect… @^Infrastructure Server <- does not work @^infrastructure-server-environment <- works Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 22 How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create kickstart specifying @^Infrastructure Server in %packages 2. Start install Actual results: You have specified that the group 'Infrastructure Server' should be installed. This group does not exist. Would you like to ignore this group and continue with installation? Please respond 'yes' or 'no': Expected results: Group/Environment get installed Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1162045] New: Power Mgmt Guide needs to Address Howto Suppress Sleep State
by Red Hat Bugzilla 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162045 Bug ID: 1162045 Summary: Power Mgmt Guide needs to Address Howto Suppress Sleep State Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: power-management-guide Severity: low Assignee: yruseva(a)redhat.com Reporter: redzilla.coralnut(a)xoxy.net QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: ddomingo(a)redhat.com, yruseva(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: F20 Power Management Guide does not address the hooks into the sleep system provided by systemd. Ever since p,m-utils was deprecated there have been no Fedora/RHAT resources available that discuss how to utilize the hooks into the sleep system to prevent entry into the sleep state. Example: in the era of pm-utils (going back to what, F15?) one could write scripts to suppress the transition to S3 if a desirable network connection were established that should not be interrupted. All that was required was to place the script in /etc/pm/sleep.d/ and have it issue a non-zero exit code if sleep should be suppressed. When the goto sleep process prepared for sleep by executing the script, the script could deliver a non-zero exit code and prevent entry into the sleep state. Now that pm-utils has been deprecated and replaced with systemd, Fedora now ignores any/all scripts in /etc/pm/*. That isn't a problem. What *IS* a problem, though, is that for the past 5 releases of Fedora, the Power Management Guide has completely ignored the topic of how to use custom scripts to prevent entry into the sleep state. As a result, our only options are to look for help and examples in other distributions. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): F20, F21 How reproducible: N/A. The documentation doesn't address the problem. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- 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 July 2016