docs-qa April 2020

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
14 discussions

[Bug 1662306] New: TigerVNC Configuration Page out of date
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662306 Bug ID: 1662306 Summary: TigerVNC Configuration Page out of date Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: system-administrator's-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: colin.henry(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Documentation does not reflect current file configuration Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 29 How reproducible: Try and follow the instructions on the configuration page, it tells you to change settings that aren't there. For instance, users are told to edit the and change: ExecStart=/sbin/runuser -l USER -c "/usr/bin/vncserver %i -geometry 1280x1024" PIDFile=/home/USER/.vnc/%H%i.pid Whereas the actual file contains: ExecStart=/usr/bin/vncserver -autokill %i PIDFile=/home/<USER>/.vnc/%H%i.pid Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to the documentation page: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f29/system-administrators-guide… 2. Install tigervnc-server 3. Look at the configuration file /lib/systemd/system/vncserver@.service Actual results: The files differ significantly, also following the instructions in the configuration file fails to start vnc successfully, but I'll file a bug for that separately. Expected results: Configuration documentation should match the files on the host Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1815635] New: Fedora 31 bluetooth stopped working
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815635 Bug ID: 1815635 Summary: Fedora 31 bluetooth stopped working Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: technical-notes Severity: high Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: super250(a)g.uky.edu QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: bluetooth stopped working Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 31 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1.\<edit\> /usr/lib/systemd/system/bluetooth.service \<add '-d' to ExecStart line as option to bluetoothd\> 2. systemctl daemon-reload 3. systemctl restart bluetooth (Capture the logs to put in bugzilla report) journalctl -r -u bluetooth > /tmp/bluetoothd.out Actual results: bluetooth.service: Service has no ExecStart=, ExecStop=, or SuccessAction=. Refusing Expected results: bluetooth.service - Bluetooth service Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/bluetooth.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled) Active: active (running) since Wed 2017-10-04 16:07:40 EDT; 1 day 22h ago Docs: man:bluetoothd(8) Main PID: 27427 (bluetoothd) Status: "Running" Tasks: 1 (limit: 4915) CGroup: /system.slice/bluetooth.service └─27427 /usr/libexec/bluetooth/bluetoothd Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1790615] New: AppStream (formerly AppData) packaging guidelines use outdated terms and example code
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790615 Bug ID: 1790615 Summary: AppStream (formerly AppData) packaging guidelines use outdated terms and example code Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: packager-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: andrew(a)tosk.in QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora I'm referring to the docs at "Packaging Guidelines for AppData Files" <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/> The AppStream project has made a number of changes since these Fedora guidelines were written, and the conflicting information confused me at first, as I looked up how to add AppStream metadata to a new package I'm working on... * In the Fedora guidelines, the second sentence ("Installed .appdata.xml files MUST follow the AppData specification page.") links to <http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/> but this URL now redirects to <https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#se…> * As far as I can tell, the AppStream specification no longer uses the filename to distinguish between applications and addons, and all AppStream metadata files should now be named .metainfo.xml. Files for GUI applications are no longer named .appdata.xml. See <https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#se…> * The example .appdata.xml file in the Fedora guidelines is therefore also out of date. The current AppStream spec, for example, states that the component type should be "desktop-application" instead of just "desktop". Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the Fedora guidelines here will need to be rewritten somewhat. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1802159] New: Default login for Fedora core os either undocumented or missing
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 25 Jun '20

25 Jun '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802159 Bug ID: 1802159 Summary: Default login for Fedora core os either undocumented or missing Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: hadmut(a)danisch.de QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: I was just giving Fedora Core OS a first try and installed it from the ISO image to the bare metal following the instructions at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/bare-metal/ Since I didn't have an ignition file yet, I just ran sudo coreos-installer install /dev/sda with out the ignition file, and this worked. After rebooting, the system came up, but I could not login on the console. The Docs do not contain a hint about what username and what password to use. When i mounted the file system on a different linux machine I saw that there is a core use with no password set. Since I'm not familiar with ostree, I wasn't sure whether I was breaking anything if I just changed the password in the /etc/shadow on that disk, and this is probably not the intended way to use the system. You end up with having a system that's of no use since you can't login. Either the docs should tell how to login after plain install, or coreos-installer should prevent from installing a system with no use and no login. regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1706205] New: fedora 30 kde live image contains the squashfs image from fedora 27 and its gnome
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 26 May '20

26 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706205 Bug ID: 1706205 Summary: fedora 30 kde live image contains the squashfs image from fedora 27 and its gnome Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: about-fedora Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: rob.verduijn(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: When booting the recovery option you get the squashfs image from the image found in the LiveOS folder This is a gnome image (a bit strange on a kde live image) And it is from fedora27 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora 30 kde live image iso How reproducible: boot the recovery option from that iso and you will see Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: gnome squashfs image from fedora27 Expected results: kde squashfs image from fedora30 Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1175759] Checksum validation in PowerShell is wrong
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175759 --- Comment #31 from darin(a)technotic.ca --- Nevermind, this fix is to change the line: $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() to: $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[2].ToLower() I have no clue what could force a change like this, but it works now! Attached my powershell console. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1175759] Checksum validation in PowerShell is wrong
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175759 darin(a)technotic.ca changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |darin(a)technotic.ca --- Comment #30 from darin(a)technotic.ca --- hey guys, sorry for spamming but on FC32 and Win 10 1909 this is also broken as Richard Hrkach Jr pointed out (I modified it slightly to make it more verbose) PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> cd $HOME\Downloads echo "Loading resource necessary to calculate your checksum...Please hold..." $image = "Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-32-1.6.iso" $checksum_file = "Fedora-Workstation-32-1.6-x86_64-CHECKSUM" $sha256 = New-Object -TypeName System.Security.Cryptography.sha256CryptoServiceProvider Loading resource necessary to calculate your checksum...Please hold... PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> echo $expected_checksum sha256 PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> echo $expected_checksum sha256 PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() PS C:\Users\darin\Downloads> echo $expected_checksum (fedora-workstation-live-x86_64-32-1.6.iso) Something seems to have changed in the split, but I don't know anything about powershell nor coding - so I don't know where to begin to look at fixing this... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1825693] New: In alternative downloads of fedoraproject.org there is missing download content - 404 error.
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825693 Bug ID: 1825693 Summary: In alternative downloads of fedoraproject.org there is missing download content - 404 error. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Component: docs-requests Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: janfishergg(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 Document URL: https://alt.fedoraproject.org/en/ Section Number and Name: "Everything" Describe the issue: Upon clicking the "Verify" link there's a web server error message instead like this[1]. Suggestions for improvement: Make the content available for download. Additional information: [1] Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server. Apache Server at alt.fedoraproject.org Port 443 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 07 Apr '20

07 Apr '20

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. If you want these mails to stop you need to go to the bug[s] and cancel or ack the needinfo flags. See: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#flags point 3 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#miscellaneous point 2 review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (2017 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 06 Apr '20

06 Apr '20

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. If you want these mails to stop you need to go to the bug[s] and cancel or ack the needinfo flags. See: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#flags point 3 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#miscellaneous point 2 review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (2016 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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa April 2020