July 2015 - docs-qa - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1098298] New: Some problems in "Chapter 11. Storage pools"

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098298 Bug ID: 1098298 Summary: Some problems in "Chapter 11. Storage pools" Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-administration-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: bughunt(a)gluino.name QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com In: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Virtualization_Adminis... I want to create storage pools using virsh. Corrections: Create the storage pool definition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The path to a file system directory for storing guest image files. If this directory does not exist, virsh will create it." This is incorrect. "You have to create it afterwards using virsh" is correct. Create the local directory - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I create the directory under "/home" Documentation shows that "ls -la /guest_images" shows the directory having permissions "700". This is incorrect, the permissions are "755" (at least for me) Improvement: Maybe one should also add the output of ls --lcontext -la /guest_images/ drwxr-xr-x. 2 system_u:object_r:home_root_t:s0 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 . drwxr-xr-x. 5 system_u:object_r:home_root_t:s0 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 .. The wrong permissions error is repeated under "6. Verify the storage pool configuration": ls -la /guest_images/ total 8 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 . drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 .. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1068889] New: Remove references to version numbers in package documentation directories

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068889 Bug ID: 1068889 Summary: Remove references to version numbers in package documentation directories Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: sclark(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com Created attachment 866496 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=866496&action=edit The attached archive contains patches to implement this change Following instructions in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs remove the version number from the directory name for all references to any package documentation directory in /usr/share/doc , leaving just the package's name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1217953] New: '--nombr' option from bootloader keyword in kickstart file is not documented

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217953 Bug ID: 1217953 Summary: '--nombr' option from bootloader keyword in kickstart file is not documented Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: franta(a)hanzlici.cz QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: 'ksverdiff -f F20 -t F21' command (among others) print: " The following options were added to the bootloader command in F21: --disabled --nombr " But F21 'Installation Guide' in "A.2.2. bootloader" chapter: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/sec... not mention '--nombr' option for this keyword. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): F21 Installation Guide (above URL) ksverdiff from pykickstart-1.99.65-2.fc21.noarch Additional info: - for unknown reason, RH Bugzilla offers only 'devel' version for this issue, although I want report it again F21. - of course, there may be bug somewhere in 'ksverdiff'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1214964] New: Hold Option to select boot source on Mac hardware

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214964 Bug ID: 1214964 Summary: Hold Option to select boot source on Mac hardware Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: beland(a)alum.mit.edu QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co I'm not sure where to find the draft of the Fedora 22 Installation Guide, but I went through the Fedora 21 version steps in order to install the beta today. One suggestion for the new version of this page: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/cha... I recommend adding something like "On Mac hardware, hold down Option to enter the boot media selection menu." Mac hardware with Intel chips is rather common now, so I hope a significant number of people would be aided by that addition. I spent several hours trying to figure that out the first time I put Fedora on a Macbook. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1246770] New: Link points to wrong "common bugs" page

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246770 Bug ID: 1246770 Summary: Link points to wrong "common bugs" page Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: release-notes Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: r_mercado(a)o2.co.uk QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Section 1.4 of the Release Notes for Fedora 22 include a link to "Common F22 Bugs" in the Fedora Wiki, but the link takes one to "common F21 bugs". Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel... 2. Navigate to section 1.4 3. Click on "Common F22 Bugs" Actual results: The link takes the browser to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F21_bugs Expected results: Browser at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F22_bugs Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 4 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 1180524] New: confining users section unclear

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180524 Bug ID: 1180524 Summary: confining users section unclear Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: selinux-user-guide Assignee: mprpic(a)redhat.com Reporter: nmavrogi(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mprpic(a)redhat.com, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co The section 6 (confining users) in Fedora 21 documentation of SELinux is very unclear. 1. What does confining mean actually? How are they confined? What capabilities these user lose? These are crucial information, never discussed in the text. 2. In fedora with "seinfo -u" I see several selinux users. These, along with the limitation each has, are never discussed. 3. "6.5. xguest: Kiosk Mode": I miss some technical info on the restrictions of the xguest account. What that user can't do and what can it do. Without that information the text could just say, trust us we've done everything for you (nothing bad with it, except that in technical documentation you expect more). 4. I miss a "confining a server process/app" section. This is a very common usage for selinux but no information is provided about that at all. Can I put some server in a confined state, as the documentation discusses with the user? Do we provide some preconfigured selinux users, roles, types for that purpose? What about the sandbox tool we ship? That would be the information I'd expect from such a section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 5 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 1180142] New: issues in the introduction of selinux-user-guide

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180142 Bug ID: 1180142 Summary: issues in the introduction of selinux-user-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: selinux-user-guide Assignee: mprpic(a)redhat.com Reporter: nmavrogi(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mprpic(a)redhat.com, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co [Originally sent to authors of the document] I was trying to understand selinux using that guide, and had quite some issues in the introduction. I send you my issues in the hope they will help to improve the text. ------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2. Introduction to SELinux: I couldn't really understand what is selinux based on this section. It says it is mandatory access control mechanism, and then it goes into length explaining the 'Discretionary Access Control (DAC) system' used typically in Linux. That's nice if you already know what selinux is, because you can see the difference, but the opposite what I'd expect at the moment since I have no idea what selinux is. My suggestion would be to add the description I saw in https://www.imperialviolet.org/2009/07/14/selinux.html "SELinux is fundamentally about answering questions of the form “May x do y to z?” and enforcing the result (x is subject, z is object) ... The action (y) boils down to a class and a permission. Each class can have up to 32 permissions (because they are stored as a bitmask in a 32-bit int). Examples of classes are FILE, TCP_SOCKET and X_EVENT. For the FILE class, some examples of permissions are READ, WRITE, LOCK etc." At least for me that was all the information that I needed to understand what I can do with SELinux. A complete pictures may require to go into a bit more length with explaining what can be a subject, object and actions. Then mentioning about MAC and explaining it in addition to DAC will be more natural IMO. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.1. Benefits of running SELinux This is section vaguely defines domain. I reached "3.1. Domain Transitions" and didn't know what a domain was. Maybe add a definition of domain in 3.1 or earlier in the introduction. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3. SELinux Contexts level: It explains that in Fedora there is a single sensitivity and multiple categories. I miss what are these categories intended to be used to? An example with two different categories would be helpful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 5 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1231578] New: No valid SHA1 checksums in checksum file

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231578 Bug ID: 1231578 Summary: No valid SHA1 checksums in checksum file Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: misterfluff(a)me.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Following the installation procedure for Fedora 22 the section in 3,3,2 (verifying checksums on Linux and OS X systems) fails. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-Live-Scientific_KDE-x86_64-22-3.iso How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download Fedora-Live-Scientific_KDE-x86_64-22-3.iso from spins page 2. Download Fedora-Spins-x86_64-22-CHECKSUM 3. shasum -a 256 -c *CHECKSUM Actual results: Fedora-Spins-x86_64-22-CHECKSUM: no properly formatted SHA1 checksum lines found Expected results: Success, of course...:) Additional info: Additional checksum file Fedora-Workstation-22-x86_64-CHECKSUM file gave same result. Also performed "curl https://getfedora.org/static/fedora.gpg | gpg --import" with no change in eventual result. Is the process the same for checking a spin install versus the regular workstation? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 5 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1222305] New: Release notes scattered with references to YUM. DNF replaces yum

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222305 Bug ID: 1222305 Summary: Release notes scattered with references to YUM. DNF replaces yum Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: release-notes Severity: high Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: The release notes on the web are not current and do not match the Fedora 22 release. The release notes within the Fedora 22 /usr/share/doc are also refering to Fedora 19 in places. In preparation for Fedora 22 release notes it looks like someone searched for Fedora 21 and changed the 21 to 22. 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.

8 years, 5 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1008149] New: Contraficting info about the need of shared storage for storing guest images to be migrated

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008149 Bug ID: 1008149 Summary: Contraficting info about the need of shared storage for storing guest images to be migrated Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-getting-started-guide Assignee: dayleparker(a)redhat.com Reporter: jrodrigosm(a)yahoo.es QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dayleparker(a)redhat.com, docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Hi, In the Fedora 19 "Virtualization Getting Started Guide", section 2.2 ("What is migration?"), URL http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Virtualization_Getting... In the paragraph right before the 2.2.1 title, it is stated that "In Fedora 19, shared storage is not necessary for storing guest images to be migrated. With live storage migration [...]". But in the last paragraph of the page, right before the note, it is stated that "Shared, networked storage must be used for storing guest images to be migrated. Without shared storage, migration is not possible." These two statements seem contradictory to me. I just started learning about virtualization, so I am unable to propose an alternative. But I do think some clarification is needed. Thanks, Rodrigo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 6 months

1
2
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa July 2015