[Bug 1010674] New: kdeaccessibility
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010674
Bug ID: 1010674
Summary: kdeaccessibility
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: accessibility-guide
Assignee: gerard(a)ryan.lt
Reporter: cickumqt(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: gerard(a)ryan.lt, sparks(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Hi,
In transifex:
"In Fedora, <application>KMouseTool</application> is packaged in the
<package>kdeaccessibility</package> package. This package also contains
kmagnifier, kmouth, and ktts, all of which are discussed in other areas of this
guide. To install <package>kdeaccessibility</package> you can either select
<menuchoice><guilabel>System > Administration > Add/Remove
Software</guilabel></menuchoice> and then type in
<package>kdeaccessibility</package> in the screen that pops up, or in a
terminal window type su -c "yum install kdeaccessibility"."
I just searched and found kmousetool has been packaged as standalone package
from f20, should we revise the doc?
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 982517] New: 4.4.1. Adding a New User
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 891931] New: Chapter 3
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 995595] New: Allocators.xml
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995595
Bug ID: 995595
Summary: Allocators.xml
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: defensive-coding-guide
Assignee: fweimer(a)redhat.com
Reporter: Geodebay(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: fweimer(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
In Allocators.xml, line 135 to 138, you write:
" .... For instance,
to allocate an array of <literal>n</literal> elements of type
<literal>T</literal>, check that the requested size is not
greater than <literal>n / sizeof(T)</literal>."
It is not rather?
" .... For instance,
to allocate an array of <literal>n</literal> elements of type
<literal>T</literal>, check that the requested size is not
smaller than <literal>n * sizeof(T)</literal>."
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 892673] New: UEFI Secure Boot Guide: suggestions for edits
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 782916] New: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 1005452] New: Outdated information
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005452
Bug ID: 1005452
Summary: Outdated information
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Severity: medium
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: cickumqt(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Quoted from
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...:
The RPM bindings for Python are documented along with the C programming API. On
a Red Hat Linux system, look in the file
/usr/share/doc/rpm-devel-4.1/apidocs/html/group__python.html to see the start
of the Python-specific documentation.
Note that much of this online documentation covers the C functions that provide
the Python bindings, not the Python API itself. But, if you examine the online
information on objects listed as classes, such as rpmts, you can find the
Python-specific documentation.
Furthermore, if you look into the .c files that make up the Python bindings,
you can find PyMethodDef structure tables. These tables provide useful glimpses
into the Python API.
To learn more about programming in Python, install the python-docs package. The
python-docs package has a large set of online documentation for Python,
including the official Python Tutorial. With Red Hat Linux, start at
/usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1/html/tut/tut.html.
Cross Reference
Other tutorials are available at http://diveintopython.org for the Dive Into
Python tutorial for experienced programmers, and at
http://py.vaults.ca/parnassus/apyllo.py/935043691.636055170 for the Vaults of
Parnassus listing of tutorials.
I think we need to update some words like RPM4.1,
/usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.2.1 (F20 docdir changes) and Red Hat Linux ....
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 977063] New: New NetworkManager features should be documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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.
10 years, 2 months