docs-qa July 2013

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
97 discussions

[Bug 982517] New: 4.4.1. Adding a New User
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982517 Bug ID: 982517 Summary: 4.4.1. Adding a New User 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 4.4.1 at item number 6 explaining the user creation process, it is inferred that the contents of /etc/skel are as follows: . .. .bash_logout .bash_profile .bashrc .gnome2 .mozilla They are in fact: . .. .bash_logout .bash_profile .bashrc .mozilla .zshrc -- 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 977063] New: New NetworkManager features should be documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977063 Bug ID: 977063 Summary: New NetworkManager features should be documented 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 NetworkManager now offers hotspot functionality, allowing users to easily share a non-wireless connection over a wireless interface. As of F19, NetworkManager allows the creation and usage of both bridge and bond virtual devices. These features should be documented in the System Administrator's guide. --Pete -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 987669] New: Fedora has no support or support limits
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '13

14 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987669 Bug ID: 987669 Summary: Fedora has no support or support limits 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 Created attachment 777472 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777472&action=edit Comments out support limit section The section referencing RHEL/RHEV support limits does not apply to fedora users. The attached patch comments out this section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 987710] New: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '13

14 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987710 Bug ID: 987710 Summary: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating 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 The section "Guest CPU models" should be updated, comments below: Background: - http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/CPUModels has the QEMU roadmap for relevant features - rawhide/F20 is currently shipping qemu-1.5.1 - F19 is currently shipping qemu-1.4.2 - F18 is currently shipping qemu-1.2.2 - Fedora ships qemu-kvm as /usr/bin/qemu-kvm not /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm The first part of the section states CPU configurations are defined in XML files rather than hardcoded; per the roadmap, they are again hardcoded to allow compatibility code and more unified processor definitions. There's no indication of backwards compatibility from qemu, although virsh and friends may still accept .conf definitions and Know What To Do when talking to qemu. In F18 and F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?cpuid` and `qemu-kvm -cpu ?dump` do not function. In F18, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a terse list of definitions. in F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a more descriptive list, and also includes a comprehensive list of recognized CPU flags. This could possibly replace `?cpuid` In both, `qemu-kvm -cpu <name>,enforce` functions as expected; this content is commented out. Looking further into comparing guest CPU features, I find `virsh capabilities` will generate xml representing the host. It also appears to represent other architectures that the host could emulate - if the appropriate packages (ie qemu-arm ) are installed, and I correctly understand what they do. There's also `virsh cpu-baseline` to generate a cpu definition that would allow migration between file-defined hosts, and `virsh cpu-compare` to compare a defined host with the local host. Both of these rely on [deprecated] xml .conf cpu definition files. I haven't been able to find a more elegant way to compare cpu configurations than scripting together the above virsh commands, presuming `virsh capabilities` works the way I suspect. The qemu roadmap cites `-cpu best` as a way to get the best CPU definition when creating a guest - but it doesn't work here, and I'm not sure how it would make a determination if it did. A lot of the information I've discovered deals directly with qemu, not libvirt. With qemu moving back to hard coded cpu definitions, I think it would be good to get some insight on if libvirt tools are affected and how they are handling the change. In general, I think it would be better to present libvirt commands rather than commands executing qemu directly. I'm not submitting a patch for this one because I'm not sure where to go with it. It *seems* like libvirt should have a simple way to compare the capabilities of heterogeneous hosts and aid in creating the best definitions for guests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 987674] New: KVM host verification is called KVM guest compatibility, and does not have a direct link
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '13

14 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987674 Bug ID: 987674 Summary: KVM host verification is called KVM guest compatibility, and does not have a direct link 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 Created attachment 777474 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777474&action=edit Change title and add link The section "KVM guest virtual machine compatibility" refers to verifying that a machine is capable of acting as a KVM host, and references the Virtualization Administration Guide. The attach patch changes the title of that section to better reflect the content, and provides a direct link to the referenced content. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 987664] New: Guide intro references documnetnation that is not available for Fedora
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '13

14 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987664 Bug ID: 987664 Summary: Guide intro references documnetnation that is not available for Fedora 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 Created attachment 777453 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777453&action=edit Patch commenting out unavailable guides. The introduction to the Virtualization Deployment and Administration Guide references related documentation that has been developed for RHEL/RHEV but is not maintained for Fedora. The attached patch comments out those sections so that only guides that are currently maintained for Fedora will be referenced. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[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

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa July 2013