docs-qa October 2019

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
24 discussions

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 3 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again tomorrow if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 3 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1850 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 3 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again tomorrow if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 3 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1849 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 3 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again tomorrow if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 3 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1848 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 --- Comment #16 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #15) > (In reply to Eric Garver from comment #14) > > If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue > > upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR. > > This is the 15th comment on this topic. Are you sure you're the right person > writing the documentation if you need to ask this - when someone already > filed a report that there is a problem? I was referring to the upstream firewalld documentation as many of the items you mentioned are relevant to upstream. This bug is for fedora downstream documentation. Both accept contributions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 --- Comment #15 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi> --- (In reply to Eric Garver from comment #14) > If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue > upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR. This is the 15th comment on this topic. Are you sure you're the right person writing the documentation if you need to ask this - when someone already filed a report that there is a problem? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 --- Comment #14 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #10) [..] > Using --direct removes the whole point of having that daemon+userinterface > and removes the benefits they provide. Only thing left are the other > limitations, missing documenation, weird "concepts" and broken XML (and who > knows what else crap). If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 --- Comment #13 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Mai Ling from comment #9) > and another stupid thing is that you must specify the physical interface > name like in traditional iptables, but I expected it to integrate nicely > with networkmanager and I expected to be able to write connection names, not > interface names, and then I expected it to automatically translate to > physical interface names! > but I guess I have too high expectations of firewalld... What you describe already occurs. firewalld integrates with NetworkManager. You can set the "zone" in the NM connection settings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 --- Comment #12 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Mai Ling from comment #8) > this is even more stupid. direct rules do not work with interface 'any', you > must explicitly set both physical interface name for input and output. > > so "-i interface1 -o any" does not work! (tested on RHEL 7.5) "-o any" attempts to match an output interface with name "any". If you want to match _any_ output interface, then omit the option. You can also use wildcarding with "+". This is covered pretty thoroughly in the iptables man page. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426 Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |egarver(a)redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Mai Ling from comment #7) > this is stupid. having to add direct rules is stupid. why does not firewalld > offer a native way to add rules to chain FORWARD in table filter? Because no one has implemented the feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1761177] New: Screensaver Inconsistant or Non-existant. Please Bring It Back
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 14 Oct '19

14 Oct '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761177 Bug ID: 1761177 Summary: Screensaver Inconsistant or Non-existant. Please Bring It Back Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: docs-requests Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: trennor.turcotte95(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora I am still on F29, however expect to upgrade to F30+ in April, 2020. One 'bug' which is really bugginig me is the inconsistency of the screensaver. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; I'm used to it working most of the time, but lately, that has turned around so it's not working most of the time. Now, some boffin or technically minded person came up with the a theory that screensavers are not needed anymore because the modern screens don't need saving from burning images on them. I don't care about that; what I care about is the privacy a screensaver gives me when I'm away from my computer. I generally use the black 'screen blanking' feature currently found in the power savings; I would like that either fixed so it works consistently, or moved from power settings and a button placed on the task bar (could be optional) which I can press with the mouse and activate my saver, or in case I'm away for more than a set time, the saver will kick in automatically. Like it's supposed to do now, only it doesn't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa October 2019