[Bug 832179] New: Power management guide is wrong for frequency scaling in Fedora 17
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832179
Bug ID: 832179
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: devel
Priority: unspecified
CC: ddomingo(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com
Assignee: r.landmann(a)redhat.com
Summary: Power management guide is wrong for frequency scaling
in Fedora 17
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: jnm11(a)cam.ac.uk
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: power-management-guide
Product: Fedora Documentation
Description of problem:
Power management guide is wrong
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/17/html/Power_Management_Guid...
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Fedora 17
the location of the cpufreq directory is misspecified
it is
/lib/modules/3.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64/kernel/drivers/cpufreq
There are no modules
acpi-cpufreq or p4-clockmod available
is acpi-cpufreq directly compiled in.
the cpuspeed package is mentioned for the userspace governor but no package
exists in fedora 17.
I have been completely unable to figure out the following use case.
My laptop overheats and powers off if the cpu load is high for too long.
There should be a cpu governor or userspace daemon that reduces frequency when
the temperature gets too high.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 3 months
[Bug 769438] New: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within rpm-guide-programming-python.xml
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: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within rpm-guide-programming-python.xml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769438
Summary: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within
rpm-guide-programming-python.xml
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Component: rpm-guide
AssignedTo: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
ReportedBy: dmalcolm(a)redhat.com
QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Created attachment 548940
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=548940
Patch to Rpm Guide to fix rpm-guide-programming-python.xml
Unfortunately the examples of Python code within the RPM guide have been
thoroughly broken since the initial conversion to DocBook, due to the way
Python treats leading whitespace as significant.
I'm attaching a patch which overhauls this page, so that the code examples are
syntactically valid. See the notes in the patch
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1003962] New: RPM scriptlet -p option not documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003962
Bug ID: 1003962
Summary: RPM scriptlet -p option not documented
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: daniel.neuberger(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
The fedora RPM guide does not document the -p option that can be passed to the
RPM scriptlets. It should probably be located here
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...,
but I looked through the entire guide and couldn't find it.
The only only place I could find it documented is here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets, but what it says is
wrong. It says:
"The basic syntax is similar to the %build, %install, and other sections of the
rpm spec file. The scripts support a special flag, -p which allows the
scriptlet to invoke a single program directly rather than having to spawn a
shell to invoke the programs. (ie: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig)"
A more accurate description is:
"The basic syntax is similar to the %build, %install, and other sections of the
rpm spec file.
The scripts support a special flag, -p which specifies the interPreter that
should be used to run the script (the default is /bin/sh). Sometimes the -p
option is used with no body in order to run a single command directly rather
than having to spawn a shell to invoke the programs (i.e. %post -p
/sbin/ldconfig). Note that this form requires that there be nothing but white
space (not even comments) until the next section begins."
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 985020] New: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985020
Bug ID: 985020
Summary: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: packager-guide
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Reporter: bvoperdf21(a)mt2014.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
First I'd like to thank for the awesome documentaions available.
Also +1 for the export function (PDF,html-single,...).
Looking at the packagers guide I missed some information.
It would be nice if you also tell what kind of rpm packages are out there.
What I found so far:
.rpm
.src.rpm
.debugsource....
.debuginfo....
For example I still don't know if the debugsource is needed when using gdb for
debugging or if the debuginfo package is enough.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):Edition 18.0.1
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.go to
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/P...
2.read everything
Actual results: no description of the defferent types of rpm packages
Expected results: find description of the defferent types of rpm packages and
what they are used for/by.
Additional info: would be nice to have this
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 959626] New: config_name mismatch in mock example
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora Documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959626
Bug ID: 959626
Summary: config_name mismatch in mock example
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: packager-guide
Severity: low
Priority: unspecified
Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Reporter: axilleas(a)archlinux.gr
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: fnadge(a)redhat.com
Category: ---
Description of problem:
In section 2.4.3. Testing a Package with Mock, the last example uses the
epel-6-x86_64 config whereas Fedora 18 is referenced above.
According to the preamble, the example should read:
mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eject-2.1.5-0.1.fc18.src.rpm
Link:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1008227] New: SSD cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008227
Bug ID: 1008227
Summary: SSD cache
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: agk(a)redhat.com, i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com,
jeremy(a)goop.org, jreznik(a)redhat.com, kzak(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, rdieter(a)math.unl.edu,
rolf(a)rolffokkens.nl, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998543, 999690, 1000817, 1001120, 1003208, 1000078,
1003207
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998543 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: SSD cache
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/SSD_cache
Using recent kernel (3.9 and later) features for (fast) SSD caching of (slow)
ordinary hard disks.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-21 13:35:33 EDT ---
I'll build a bcache-tools RPM and a dm-cache-utils rpm (actually bcache-tools
is already available here: bcache-tools-20130820-0.1.fc19.src.rpm).
I'll follow the procedure as described here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-24 11:51:34 EDT ---
Tried to create a dmcache-utils package as well (Bug 1000078) but it doesn't
look really useful. So I'll focus on bcache-tools first. For that I still need
a sponsor.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-27 06:52:40 EDT ---
I closed Bug 1000078 since good userland support requires LVM2 to support
dm-cache. Which will happen 'in the future', but F20 doesn't look feasible to
me.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:21:30 EDT ---
Create Bug 1003207 (bcache support for dracut) which is not blocking for F20,
but probably will be blocking for F21.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:25:06 EDT ---
Create Bug 1003208 (bcache support for anaconda) which is not blocking for F20,
but probably will be blocking for F21.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-09-09 04:18:18 EDT ---
Test day planned: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/415
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185336.html
Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 8 months
[Bug 982899] New: 7.3.1. Establishing a Wired (Ethernet) Connection
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982899
Bug ID: 982899
Summary: 7.3.1. Establishing a Wired (Ethernet) 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 7.3.1:
Default connection no longer called 'em1'
No field for 'connection name'
you can add new settings for the network under different profiles by selecting
'add profile...'
you can remove/reset a profile by going to the 'options' button under the
profile and selecting the 'reset' item on the left, and then choosing to either
'reset' or 'forget'
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 9 months
[Bug 1001344] New: Allow kdump on secureboot machines
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001344
Bug ID: 1001344
Summary: Allow kdump on secureboot machines
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: jreznik(a)redhat.com, nobody(a)fedoraproject.org,
sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com,
vgoyal(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998565
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998565 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: Allow kdump on secureboot machines
For more details, see:
http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/Kdump_with_secureboot
Currently kexec/kdump is disabled on machines with secureboot enabled. This
feature aims to enable kexec/kdump on such machines.
--- Additional comment from Vivek Goyal on 2013-08-22 10:43:53 EDT ---
I think first thing is to include a new package ima-evm-tools in F20. I am not
sure how to do it.
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-08-26 10:28:07 EDT ---
(In reply to Vivek Goyal from comment #1)
> I think first thing is to include a new package ima-evm-tools in F20. I am
> not sure how to do it.
Vivek, create Package Review -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process for ima-evm-tools and
block this bug on the created review bug. After review, add it to comps.
Thank you.
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-July/001179...
Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
7 years, 9 months