docs-qa May 2013

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
38 discussions

[Bug 904083] New: Storage Administration Guide is obsolete or not?
by Red Hat Bugzilla 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904083 Bug ID: 904083 Summary: Storage Administration Guide is obsolete or not? Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: storage-administration-guide Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: q2dg(a)yahoo.es I've seen in http://docs.fedoraproject.org that last version of "Storage Administration Guide" is for Fedora 14. It's more than two years ago!! I don't know if this fact is due to this guide doesn't need any update or if it's due to a lack of love from editors. I want to notify this in Bugzilla to remember this situation, but I'm not sure it is really a bug... Could you tell me the reason of this abandonment? Thanks!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 5

[Bug 891931] New: Chapter 3
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891931 Bug ID: 891931 Summary: Chapter 3 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: jwboyer(a)redhat.com Description of problem: I wrote this a couple of weeks ago: http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/46149.html It details building a custom kernel. Feel free to use anything you'd like from there. However, it doesn't cover: - generating your own key/certs - signing shim or grub2 (trivially derived from the existing kernel example) - third party module signing Peter is working on a tool to make generating certs that UEFI likes easier for people. I was waiting for that tool to be available before really covering those aspects, as that is what we want users to use. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 892673] New: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892673 Bug ID: 892673 Summary: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: fweimer(a)redhat.com Replace: "With the planned release of Windows 8, Microsoft has decided that all hardware that is marked "Windows 8 client ready" should" With: "Microsoft requires that client devices carrying the Windows 8 logo must" Replace: "This means that Fedora as it stands booted on such hardware will refuse to boot until the user disables secure boot in the firmware." With: "The UEFI boot loader on Fedora installation media and on the installed system are signed with the Microsoft key, to enable booting and installation on such systems." Remove the following paragraph, ending in "This plan has been approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as of 23-Jul-2012." After: "any operations from userland which cause userland-defined DMA" Insert: "disable support for hibernate/suspend-to-disk, and other features which would allow executing arbitrary code in kernel mode (even for the root user)." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 782916] New: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782916 Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: security-guide AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us ReportedBy: budden(a)nps.navy.mil QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkennedy(a)redhat.com, eric(a)christensenplace.us, security-guide-list(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Description of problem: The juncture between computer security and network security is inadequate -- too many seams which leaves too many man-in-middle attack opportunities. The most egregious omission in this (otherwise pretty good) document is treatment of SCOPE. This probably belongs in the vicinity of 1.3. Analysis first. Map each of the security solutions you have in the guide onto the ISO Reference Model: Layer 1/2 security measures (like WiFi security) protect frames. The scope of the security is limited to a single segment. No security beyond the router and no security within end systems. Layer 3 security protected datagrams (VPNs do this, IPSec ....). The scope is an enclave tunneled through an internetwork. The protection cannot extend beyond the VPN boxes, so data is wholly unprotected within end systems (and LAN if the VPN box is associated with the last router). Layer 4/5 security includes SSL (aka TLS). You have a how-to for securing an http server (good) but no admonitions regarding scope -- the security extends from the TCP socket in one end system to the TCP socket at the other end of the connection -- again no security inside the OS comes from SSL. All of the above security measures protect infrastructure. But they do not protect the data. Layer 6/7 security measures protect the data. Here the scope _can be_ truly end to end. S/MIME is a good example (so is ssh and XML sign/crypt) where the data passes over the internet and through the OS in protected form. Only in a fairly small space is the data unprotected. In Evolution, for example, only the parts of the UA that deal with composing, reading, ... mail are places where the authenticity and confidentiality of the data is possible. Most of the rest of the UA (including all the filing system deals with data that has been protected exactly the way it's been sent over the network. In the case of Evolution (UAs differ in implementation) secured data is stored in the file system exactly the way it was transmitted. Recommendations: 1) include a mapping similar to above so users have an idea what the scope of this or that security measure is. 2) emphasize those security measures that apply to applications (layer 6/7) as Fedora distribution evolves and matures. (What got me here this morning is the continuing frustration getting Evolution to properly play ball with DoD CAC cards ... works, but doesn't 'just work'). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Security Guide 16.3 (doesn't have a date) How reproducible: The above analysis doesn't invent anything; it only organizes and sorts. Anyone can reproduce it. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 831619] New: Inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide”
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831619 Bug ID: 831619 QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Severity: low Version: devel Priority: unspecified CC: ddomingo(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Assignee: r.landmann(a)redhat.com Summary: Inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide” Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: vaskodd(a)yahoo.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: x86_64 Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: power-management-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Created attachment 591487 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=591487&action=edit The problem description in .pdf format - easy to follow Hi, First I want to notice I am a Linux newbie and my English is not that good. Now straight to the point! (The same description is available in the attached pdf file and is more easy to follow) I've noticed some inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide” (Fedora Documentation), particularly in section “2.5. Tuned and ktune” including “2.5.1. The tuned.conf file” and “2.5.2 Tuned-adm”. In section “2.5. Tuned and ktune” right bellow the “yum install tuned” command it's written: “Installing the tuned package also sets up a sample configuration file at /etc/tuned.conf and activates the default profile.” There is no such file in /etc. I found a /etc/tuned/active_profile file containing the following: “/usr/lib/tuned/balanced/tuned.conf”. I'm not sure this file (/etc/tuned.conf) is missing only on my system or it has a new location by default for each profile - /usr/lib/tuned/profileX/tuned.conf. Bellow in this section and in “2.5.1. The tuned.conf file” it is pointed again that the default location for the tuned.conf file is /etc/tuned.conf. In section “2.5.2 Tuned-adm” in the first paragraph it is written “Fedora 17 includes a number of predefined profiles for typical use cases...”. Just to be precise it is good to be mentioned that these profiles are not installed by default with “yum install tuned” command (tuned-2.0.1-1.fc17 package), but can be found in tuned-profile-compat-2.0.1-1.fc17 package (I found it in Gnome Package Manager). Another thing in this section is in the last third of the page where it is written: “All the profiles are stored in separate subdirectories under /etc/tune-profiles. So /etc/tune-profiles/desktop-powersave contains all the necessary files and settings for that profile. Each of these directories contains up to four files:” There /etc/tune-profiles directory does not exist. Instead I found the profiles stored in /run/lib/tuned. Each directory for the corresponding profile typically contains only 2 files - script.sh and tuned.conf. The presence of script.sh is not mentioned in the directories contains description – it is mentioned ktune.sh insetad. That's all. I hope this is helpful. Best regards Vasil Draganov Fedora 17 3.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64 P.S. “Power Management Guide” is great. It's really useful. The moment i run tuned service i noticed how quieter my laptop became (less heat – less fan needed :) ). The first thing I noticed about new Fedora installation was that the laptop was noisier in comparison to Win7 (I dual-boot with Win7). Tuned just fixed that :) Many thanks to the creators of Fedora Documentation!!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 9

[Bug 919666] New: Update Old links to Announce mailing list
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919666 Bug ID: 919666 Summary: Update Old links to Announce mailing list Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: bryan.sutherland(a)gmail.com Description of problem:URL pointing to mailman "fedora-announce-list" points to old location on RH server. Link needs to be updated to point to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/announce 18.4. Subscribing to Fedora Announcements and News To receive information about package updates, subscribe to either the announcements mailing list, or the RSS feeds. Fedora Project announcements mailing list https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Everytime Steps to Reproduce: 1.Read section 18.1 of Install Guide 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Should be linked to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/announce Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 857583] New: Typo - Page pertaining to Fedora 17 has links to Fedora 16
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857583 Bug ID: 857583 QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: devel Priority: unspecified CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Assignee: rlandman(a)redhat.com Summary: Typo - Page pertaining to Fedora 17 has links to Fedora 16 Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kellybellis(a)gwi.net Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: i686 Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: installation-quick-start-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Description of problem: URL looks like it might need attention Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 17 Live CD Image File How reproducible: typo - seems so at any rate Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: at page:http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/17/html/Installation_Quick_… Link is to The image file for the Fedora 17 live CD is available from http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/16/Live/i686/Fe…. Shouldn't this be 17 instead of 16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 857729] New: Build errors out due to missing Package_Selection-dvd.xml file.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857729 Bug ID: 857729 QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Severity: high Version: devel Priority: unspecified CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Assignee: rlandman(a)redhat.com Summary: Build errors out due to missing Package_Selection-dvd.xml file. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: joat(a)757.org Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: installation-quick-start-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Description of problem: Publican issues the following error when trying to build the Installation Quick Start Guide: FATAL ERROR: XInclude:1604 in Installation_Quick_Start_Guide.xml on line 37: could not load Package_Selection-dvd.xml, and no fallback was found Verified that Package_Selection-dvd.xml does not exist in en-US/. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: consistent Steps to Reproduce: 1. mkdir projects 2. cd projects 3. git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/docs/installation-quick-start-guide.git 4. cd installation-quick-start-guide 5. publican build --langs=en-US --formats=html Same error is emitted for --formats=pdf Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 836383] New:=?UTF-8?Q?=20Merging=20teams=20and=E2=80=A6=20zanata=20or=20TXN?=?!
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Aug '13

12 Aug '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836383 Bug ID: 836383 QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Severity: high Version: devel Priority: unspecified CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Assignee: rlandman(a)redhat.com Summary: Merging teams and… zanata or TXN?! Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: kev.raymond(a)gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: installation-quick-start-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Hi, I am a maintainer of this guide at TXN, but before doing the full merge, i wanted to be sure… https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora-ins-quick-start-guide/ * fb03c3c Adding zanata config file I can see some zanata things. You serious guys, you are moving to zanata? If so… * Please *MERGE* before. * Also, be notified that you won't benefit of any Fedora translators. Only RH folks are there… That's not good, we use a unified platform, already spreading translators between teams… having many platform is going to be a pain. * delete the transifex one. And prevent us, translators… If the project stay at TXN, why it does not have any .tx/config file? (or no lang_map?) Could I help? Thanks, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 5

[Bug 963274] New: Typos in Fedora 19 Release Notes
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Product: Fedora Documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963274 Bug ID: 963274 Summary: Typos in Fedora 19 Release Notes Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: release-notes Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: yurchor(a)ukr.net QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net Category: --- Created attachment 748332 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=748332&action=edit Patch to fix typos Description of problem: There are some minor typos in RN beta files Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): git/master How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: open files from the patch attached Actual results: asychonous capabilties Detials Expected results: asynchronous capabilities Details Additional info: Thanks for fixing these typos. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa May 2013