docs-qa December 2015

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
108 discussions

[Bug 977042] New: GUI examples presume GNOME without stating it is GNOME
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977042 Bug ID: 977042 Summary: GUI examples presume GNOME without stating it is GNOME Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: jhradile(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com The System Administrator's Guide references a number of GUI utilities, many of which are specific to GNOME. It isn't immediately obvious to the uninitiated that this is the case, causing non-GNOME users to find fault with the guide. I suggest an admonition in the preface along the lines of "Some of the graphical procedures and menu locations are specific to GNOME, but most command line instructions will be universally applicable" Comprehensively differentiating between GNOME procedures, procedures for other DEs, and universal procedures would probably be prohibitively time consuming. --Pete -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 7

[Bug 997219] New: No "Write to Disk" option for ISO images in Fedora 19
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997219 Bug ID: 997219 Summary: No "Write to Disk" option for ISO images in Fedora 19 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: readme-burning-isos Assignee: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Reporter: sirjake(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, stickster(a)gmail.com Description of problem: Guide says that you can right click on a ISO image and choose "Write to disc." This is not true, at least with Fedora 19. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 19 How reproducible: Always, at least in 32 bit. Steps to Reproduce: 1. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Burning_ISO_images_to_di… 2. Insert a DVD. 3. Attempt to follow the directions above. No "Write to disk" option exists. Actual results: No obvious way to burn ISO images in Fedora Linux 19. Expected results: Directions to burn ISO disk in Fedora Linux 19 Additional info: I had a new-to-me computer that I assumed would not support 64 bit, but after installing 32 bit found out that 64 was supported by my processor. I downloaded 64 ( Fedora-Live-Desktop-x86_64-19-1.iso ), and wanted to burn a disk of it, but the option was not available and the directions online did not help. I had to go back to Windows on a different machine to burn it. Note: I do have a DVD burner on this machine. The same thing occurs with CD's in the burner. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 948823] New: Need a search solution for docs.fedoraproject.org
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948823 Bug ID: 948823 Summary: Need a search solution for docs.fedoraproject.org Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: project-tracking Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: sparks(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com Category: --- Description of problem: Due to the removal of Google search feature (see bug 616876) we no longer have a search solution for docs.fp.o. We need to investigate an alternate solution and bring the search feature back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 7

[Bug 1220066] New: grub2-install suggestion doesn't distinguish between BIOS and UEFI installs
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220066 Bug ID: 1220066 Summary: grub2-install suggestion doesn't distinguish between BIOS and UEFI installs Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com Reporter: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com ttps://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/System_Administrators_Gu… Section 20.4 and 20.4.1 apply only to BIOS computers, not UEFI. On UEFI: 1. grub2-install fails https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101352 2. If grub2-efi-modules is installed, grub2-install succeeds but then: 2a. This will break UEFI Secure Boot systems because the core.img/grubx64.efi binary that gets created isn't signed and therefore UEFI Secure Boot will reject it. 2b. On UEFI systems without Secure Boot, GRUB behavior is different in a number of ways including that it will no longer look to /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg but rather to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. Two ways to fix the documentation: a.) A side bar that says this section doesn't apply to systems with UEFI firmware (maybe a link to where we give them a hint "how to find out what kind of firmware you have"), and/or that this section is effectively done by 20.4.2 step 3. b.) Reorganize 20.4 into discreet BIOS and UEFI sections. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 18

[Bug 1288809] New: Minor discrepancy in the Fedora documentation
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288809 Bug ID: 1288809 Summary: Minor discrepancy in the Fedora documentation Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: documentation-guide Severity: medium Assignee: sparks(a)redhat.com Reporter: pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Document URL: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/index.html Section Number and Name: Older Fedora documentation Describe the issue: It still talks about F19 & F20 releases. "The Fedora Documentation Project only maintains documentation for Fedora 19 and Fedora 20." Suggestions for improvement: It should be F21 & F22, as older releases. Additional information: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1002573] New: Enable SELinux Labeled NFS Support
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002573 Bug ID: 1002573 Summary: Enable SELinux Labeled NFS Support Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: security-guide Keywords: Tracking Assignee: sparks(a)redhat.com Reporter: sparks(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jreznik(a)redhat.com, me(a)petetravis.com, nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, security-guide-list(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com, steved(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Depends On: 984718, 998566, 1001346 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1001346 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998566 +++ This is a tracking bug for Change: Enable SELinux Labeled NFS Support For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/LabeledNFS The Linux Kernel has grown support for passing SELinux labels between a client and server using NFS. Discussion at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-July/001216.h… Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 4

[Bug 982914] New: 7.4.1. Configuring 802.1x Security
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982914 Bug ID: 982914 Summary: 7.4.1. Configuring 802.1x Security Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: jhradile(a)redhat.com Reporter: im_dracula(a)hotmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com Description of problem: In section 7.4.1 under 'Procedure 7.8. For a wired connection...', ' Procedure 7.9. For a wireless connection...': The 'Network Connections' dialogue can be accessed via: activities --> applications --> sundry --> network connections, or via nm-connection-editor This is not specified at all in this section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 4

[Bug 982911] New: 7.3.3. Establishing a Mobile Broadband Connection
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982911 Bug ID: 982911 Summary: 7.3.3. Establishing a Mobile Broadband Connection Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: jhradile(a)redhat.com Reporter: im_dracula(a)hotmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com Description of problem: Under section 7.3.3, in 'Procedure 7.3. Adding a New Mobile Broadband Connection', 'Procedure 7.4. Editing an Existing Mobile Broadband Connection': network connection editor can also be found at: activities --> applications --> sundry --> network connections -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 5

[Bug 982910] New: 7.3.5. Establishing a DSL Connection
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982910 Bug ID: 982910 Summary: 7.3.5. Establishing a DSL Connection Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: jhradile(a)redhat.com Reporter: im_dracula(a)hotmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com Description of problem: In section 7.3.5 under 'Procedure 7.6. Adding a New DSL Connection', 'Procedure 7.7. Editing an Existing DSL Connection': These procedures could also specify that the network connections editor can be accessed from: activities --> applications --> Sundry --> Network Connections -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 4

[Bug 1221780] New: how to identify firmware types, UEFI vs BIOS
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 May '16

19 May '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221780 Bug ID: 1221780 Summary: how to identify firmware types, UEFI vs BIOS Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com Reporter: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com I'm not finding advice in documentation to identify firmware type. Should we, and if so where should it go? Identifying firmware type comes in handy e.g. reinstalling grub, see bug 1220066. The problem is, users overwhelmingly equate UEFI and BIOS, often referring to it as UEFI BIOS, mainly because OEM's still call firmware updates "BIOS updates". Two possible ways to reliably identify UEFI vs BIOS firmware. On an EFI system: # ls /sys/firmware/efi config_table efivars fw_platform_size fw_vendor runtime runtime-map systab vars On a BIOS system: # ls /sys/firmware/efi ls: cannot access /sys/firmware/efi: No such file or directory ---- On an EFI system: # efibootmgr BootCurrent: 0000 Timeout: 5 seconds BootOrder: 0000,0080 Boot0000* Fedora Boot0080* Mac OS X Boot0082* BootD1A6* AST BootFFFF* On a BIOS system: # efibootmgr efibootmgr: EFI variables are not supported on this system. Unknowns: The first method always works since ls is for sure installed no matter what. I need to test if efibootmgr is always installed, e.g. netinstall (?), it definitely is always installed from lives. But if it's not installed, then it's not a UEFI system. How does coreboot firmware manifest? I think it's mainly a "better BIOS" and should behave as such. ARM firmware? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 5

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa December 2015