docs-qa December 2016

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
73 discussions

[Bug 1003962] New: RPM scriptlet -p option not documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

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/RPM…, 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.

2 7

[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 1365347] New: Please Publish edits made to virt-getting-started and Release notes
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365347 Bug ID: 1365347 Summary: Please Publish edits made to virt-getting-started and Release notes Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: publishing-requests Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: grundblom(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Hello, I have made corrections to the release notes, and I would like to request to have them published to the website (docs.fedoraproject.org) Also, I would like to request that the Virtualization Getting Started Guide become available on the website (docs.fedoraproject.org) The Virtualization Getting Started Guide has been migrated to: https://pagure.io/virt-getting-started-guide Let me know if you need more information or I have missed a step in this process to get these published. Thank you very much! -Glen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 3

[Bug 1276867] New: Packaging:SourceURL#Git Tags is erroneous for GitHub repository
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276867 Bug ID: 1276867 Summary: Packaging:SourceURL#Git Tags is erroneous for GitHub repository Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: packager-guide Severity: high Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com Reporter: francis.andre.kampbell(a)orange.fr QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com Hi The documentation about specifying SourceURL at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL, chapter Git Tags is erroneous setup should be %prep %setup -qn %{name}-%{gittag0} [GitHub] instead of %prep %setup -qn %{name}-%{version} [GitHub] -- 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 1323502] New: Push fr "release-notes" and "welcome page" for f23
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323502 Bug ID: 1323502 Summary: Push fr "release-notes" and "welcome page" for f23 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: publishing-requests Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: jb.holcroft(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org Hi there, Can you please push french release-notes for f23 and welcome page please ? I tried by email then ticket, but it looks like I took the wrong group. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites/ticket/382#comment:1 Thanks for your help -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 6

[Bug 1198984] New: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Sep '17

02 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

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa December 2016