July 2015 - docs-qa - Fedora mailing-lists

[Bug 1057882] New: Fedora - Installation Quick Start Guide - An update of the Czech translation ready
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057882 Bug ID: 1057882 Summary: Fedora - Installation Quick Start Guide - An update of the Czech translation ready Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: publishing-requests Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: josef.hruska(a)upcmail.cz QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Description of problem: Please publish an updated Czech version of the F20 Installation Quick Start Guide Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Mostly grammar errors found in current version. Expected results: An updated Czech translation published - missing translation(s) added, translation revision and precision. Additional info: If the bug BZ#1056196 is a serious obstacle, publish this update once the bug is resolved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1050903] New: Fedora - burning ISO images to disc - Updated Czech translation
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050903 Bug ID: 1050903 Summary: Fedora - burning ISO images to disc - Updated Czech translation Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: publishing-requests Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: josef.hruska(a)upcmail.cz QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Description of problem: Please publish an update of the Czech translation of Burning ISO images to disc guide Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Translation update - missing translation, revision and precision. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 985020] New: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

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/Pac… 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.

2 1

[Bug 959626] New: config_name mismatch in mock example
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

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/Pa… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1246286] New: Outdated websites in "Further information"
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246286 Bug ID: 1246286 Summary: Outdated websites in "Further information" Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: selinux-user-guide Assignee: mprpic(a)redhat.com Reporter: ah(a)riseup.net QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mprpic(a)redhat.com, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: http://selinuxnews.org seems hopelessly outdated. Last post is from 2012. The documentations on the NSA page are all from 2007 or older. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 22, Edition 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1198984] New: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198984 Bug ID: 1198984 Summary: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: razvan.sandu(a)mobexpert.ro QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Hello, Description of problem: Even using the rich-language feature, it is still rather difficult to figure out how to use firewalld on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS system that is used as a router (a "transparent" system). That's because: a. administrators will need *different* sets of rules/restrictions for access to the router itself and to the various services that run beyond the router (using or non using NAT). b. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their policies (ACCEPT or DROP) and when these policies apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. For example, an administrator needs an *easy* method to restrict VNC access *to* the router itself (INPUT), but may want free VNC access to some server located *behind* the router (FORWARD). In the second case, forwarding may (or may not) imply NAT, depending if he goes on the Internet via the external interface or simply goes in another LAN segment beyond the router. c. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their trafic rules ( *exceptions* to ACCEPT or DROP default policies) and when these rules apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. Additional info: Even it is not dynamic, the Shorewall application (http://shorewall.net/) acts as a higher-level language over iptables, offering the same concepts of "zones" for interfaces. Much of its conceptual architecture is directly applicable ("portable") to firewalld, if accepted by developers. Somewhat different from conceptual point of view, the "zones" are "levels of trust surrounding the router", including thr FW zone for the router itself. (unlike firewalld, the shorewall zones have no "sources" or "services" embedded in them). IPv4 and IPv6 zones are completely separated (they actually represent different levels of trust). Administrators may directly define policies, i.e. allow *default* actions to be done when an packet travels from a zone to another (ACCEPT, REJECT). The most sane policy between any two zones is REJECT (with further exceptions defined as rules, see below). Rules are *exceptions to policies* , explicitly defined (based on various criteria such as source IP, destination IP, ports, etc.) Rules may be expressed via predefined (or customised) "macros" (which are the direct equivalent of firewalld's "services"). IPv4 and IPv6 policy and rules are completely separated (IMHO that's good, since the use of global IPv6 addresses pose completely different security problems than NATted & externally firewalled IPv4). Best regards, Răzvan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1008227] New: SSD cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

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.

2 6

[Bug 1058066] New: new virt-xml functionality coming from upstream libvirt should be documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058066 Bug ID: 1058066 Summary: new virt-xml functionality coming from upstream libvirt should be documented 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 There is a new tool called `virt-xml` that will end up in Fedora soon[1]. It looks very useful, and should be documented. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-January/msg01226.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 980931] New: The Virtualization Administration Guide Still Uses UNIX System V Commands
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980931 Bug ID: 980931 Summary: The Virtualization Administration Guide Still Uses UNIX System V Commands Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-administration-guide Keywords: Documentation Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: jhradile(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com, me(a)petetravis.com Description of problem: The Virtualization Administration Guide for Fedora 18 [1] still uses UNIX System V commands “service” and “chkconfig”. Although these commands still work and will continue to work in the foreseeable future, users are strongly advised to learn and use the new command that is shipped with systemd and is part of the Fedora distribution since version 15. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-Virtualization_Administration_Guide-18-en-US-1.0-1 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: Read section 14.3, “Starting and stopping the daemon” [2], to learn how to configure the vhostmd service to start automatically at boot time. Actual results: /sbin/chkconfig vhostmd on Expected results: systemctl enable vhostmd.service Additional info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SysVinit_to_Systemd_Cheatsheet ----- [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/Virtualization_Ad… [2] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/Virtualization_Ad… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1095977] New: RFE: static IP assignment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095977 Bug ID: 1095977 Summary: RFE: static IP assignment Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Static IP addresses are crucial for applications like DHCP servers or other infrastructure that can't rely on external assignment. They're also helpful for home users that want to predictably locate their Fedora installation. Explain the use case for this and some alternative methods, then the procedure for setting a setting a static IP using both ifcfg files and graphical methods. Each method could be explained in a separate article; ie "... on the command line" and "... with GNOME" and "... with KDE" and so on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1101798] New: RFE: Captive portal
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101798 Bug ID: 1101798 Summary: RFE: Captive portal Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Create a recipe for configuring a simple captive portal with Fedora that will require users to acknowledge a terms of use message before allowing connections to pass. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1101796] New: RFE: NAT router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101796 Bug ID: 1101796 Summary: RFE: NAT router Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Create a recipe for using Fedora as a NAT router using Firewalld and NetworkManager. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1096394] New: RFE: Thin Client (Tracking Bug)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096394 Bug ID: 1096394 Summary: RFE: Thin Client (Tracking Bug) Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora can be used as a server and client environment for a thin client deployment. Document the required procedures to do this. Because of the broad scope and number of procedures involved, this should be split up into recipes addressing component tasks. This bug will be used to track the overall progress; please block this bug with any new bugs created for the purpose. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1095945] New: RFE: disabling head parking on spinning drives
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095945 Bug ID: 1095945 Summary: RFE: disabling head parking on spinning drives Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Some drives have aggressive APM, and the resulting frequent head parking can negatively impact access latency and produce an annoying clicking sound. Explain the theory, benefits, procedure, and risks of adjusting APM settings with hdparm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 982899] New: 7.3.1. Establishing a Wired (Ethernet) Connection
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

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.

2 6

[Bug 1198643] New: Append parameters to grub.cfg
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 May '17

08 May '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198643 Bug ID: 1198643 Summary: Append parameters to grub.cfg Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-guide Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: geanceretta(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, lnovich(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: The instructions[1] of how to append parameters to Grub's grub.config file is obsolete on recent releases of Fedora. The file /boot/grub/grub.conf doesn't exist anymore. The way to do it now is (tested on Fedora 20): 1 - Edit /etc/default/grub 2 - Append information at the line GRUBCMDLINELINUX=" ... console=tty0 console=ttyS0,115200 ... ") 3 - Regenerate the /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file with the command "grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg" Link: [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Virtualization_Administr… Additional info: The documentation is refered to version 18 where it should work, but as we don't have a documentation in a most atual release of Fedora for that subject, you can write a note for the users of most recent releases of Fedora that came with Grub2, where the procedure is according with that listed above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 4

[Bug 1225034] New: Install guide edit of the first 25 PDF pages.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 May '17

08 May '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225034 Bug ID: 1225034 Summary: Install guide edit of the first 25 PDF pages. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Created attachment 1029929 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1029929&action=edit LibreOffice editing comments against the first 25 pages of the Install guide. Description of problem: There were many typos and statements that do not apply to Fedora 22. The attached libreoffice document details the editing I have performed for the first 25 pages of the PDF manual version. If you reject the errors or accept them, please respond to this bugzilla report so that I may know if it is worth doing the next 25 of the 200 pdf pages. Refer also to 100875 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Install guide for Fedora 22 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.

2 3

[Bug 1232568] New: Clarification of VNCServer setup Requsted
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232568 Bug ID: 1232568 Summary: Clarification of VNCServer setup Requsted Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com Reporter: eckirchn(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com using: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/System_Administrators_G… [in the below statements X = {1, 2, 3....10}] I was able to install and connect to a VNC session using "vncviewer -via XXXXX" however it was only after executing "systemctl start vncserver@:X.service' on the remote machine. Executing systemctl enable vncserver@:X.service results in: Failed to execute operation: No such file or directory Section 8.1.3. Starting VNC Server states: systemctl enable vncserver@:display_number.service however, unless one creates a file such as: vncserver@:X.service the command systemctl enable vncserver@:X.service does not work. After some time with the help of [coolmadmax] on IRC://#Fedora, I was able to understand this was where I was missing a step. I think it would help to add some clarifying statements here to help others. The guide [coolmadmax] suggested: https://stufs4u.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/install-and-configure-vnc-server-i… added this ounce of clarification. Help on this issue included [mutk] [fenrus02] [kendell] [devhen] and [_AnK] and I thank all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1001344] New: Allow kdump on secureboot machines
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

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.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 2

[Bug 1001343] New: Allow kdump on secureboot machines
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001343 Bug ID: 1001343 Summary: Allow kdump on secureboot machines Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: release-notes Keywords: Tracking Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jreznik(a)redhat.com, relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, vgoyal(a)redhat.com, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, 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.h… Please create entries for this Change in the Release Notes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[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 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa July 2015