docs-qa May 2021

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
17 discussions

[Bug 1901486] New: Release notes should mention fixes for older systems impacted by security tightening in F33
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901486 Bug ID: 1901486 Summary: Release notes should mention fixes for older systems impacted by security tightening in F33 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: release-notes Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: russ+bugzilla-redhat(a)gloomytrousers.co.uk QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: On booting my system after upgrade from F31 to F33, neither httpd nor dovecot would start. This system is quite an old one that's been upgraded through many versions of Fedora. This appears to be a result of "Strong Crypto Settings - Phase 2" mentioned on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/release-notes/sysadmin/Secu… The relevant errors were: * Apache (/var/log/httpd/error_log): [Mon Nov 23 11:44:11.517501 2020] [ssl:emerg] [pid 13680:tid 13680] AH02562: Failed to configure certificate gigalith.gloomytrousers.co.uk:443:0 (with chain), check /etc/pki/tls/certs/localhost.crt [Mon Nov 23 11:44:11.517525 2020] [ssl:emerg] [pid 13680:tid 13680] SSL Library Error: error:140AB18F:SSL routines:SSL_CTX_use_certificate:ee key too small This cert was 1024 bit, first generated in 2010. The fix was to remove /etc/pki/tls/certs/localhost.crt and /etc/pki/tls/private/localhost.key then run /usr/libexec/httpd-ssl-gencerts. * Dovecot (journal): Nov 23 12:35:27 gigalith.gloomytrousers.co.uk dovecot[31160]: config: Warning: please set ssl_dh=</etc/dovecot/dh.pem Nov 23 12:35:27 gigalith.gloomytrousers.co.uk dovecot[31160]: config: Warning: You can generate it with: dd if=/var/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat bs=1 skip=88 | openssl dhparam -inform der > /etc/dovecot/dh.pem /etc/dovecot/dh.pem was present, dating from from 2013. The recommended fix did NOT work (I recall having run this in the past) - it just generated an identical file. The actual fix (stumbled across in bug 1882939) was to regenerate the DH params with `openssl dhparam -out /etc/dovecot/dh.pem 4096` (this took 32 mins on my machine!) I suspect Exim might also have similar problems for some people, although I didn't have a problem (my cert was 2048 bit from 2010, although I think I generated this in a non-default way at the time). The fix in this case would be to remove /etc/pki/tls/certs/exim.pem and /etc/pki/tls/private/exim.pem then run /usr/libexec/exim-gen-cert. I suggest these workarounds which might be required for older systems be documented on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/release-notes/sysadmin/Secu… - along with anything else that might suffer from similar issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1951400] New: feature request: dnf-system-upgrade website instructions for upgrade from previous to beta then to final release
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951400 Bug ID: 1951400 Summary: feature request: dnf-system-upgrade website instructions for upgrade from previous to beta then to final release Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: install-guide Severity: low Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: william.garber(a)att.net QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: feature request https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/ would like to see edit to above web page of yours: instructions for how to upgrade first from fedora 33 to 34 beta next from fedora 34 beta to 34. Additional info: the instructions were found on the below website and are copied below: https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-34-beta/ the name is simply 34. And, it’s enough that you upgrade your system just once. F34 Beta will evolve into F34 on (?)April 27– all you should do is a regular update of packages while no rebasing of the system is necessary. sudo dnf upgrade –refresh sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade sudo dnf system-upgrade download –refresh –releasever=34 sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1956227] New: DNF System Upgrade page links to non-existent component=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956227 Bug ID: 1956227 Summary: DNF System Upgrade page links to non-existent component=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: install-guide Severity: high Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: info(a)skierpage.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora (there's no Fedora Documentation component for Upgrading to a new release, or Quick Docs) Description of problem: I followed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/, it went smoothly, well done! But under "Frequently Asked Questions - How do I report issues with the upgrade?", the step Search Bugzilla for an existing bug report. is a link to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade… The bug list currently has one open bug 1767781 for the component dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, but this doesn't seem to be a valid component any more; it's not in the pop-up list when you enter a new bug. I'm not sure what the correct component is for dnf system-upgrade bugs: some bugs are filed against dnf, and others against dnf-plugins-extras. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Not applicable. How reproducible: Every time. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/ 2. Follow the link in "Search _Bugzilla for an existing bug report_."3 3. Try to file a bug. Actual results: Only one open bug for dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, and you can't choose this Fedora component to enter a new bug. Expected results: Link should show a list of bugs with current system-update. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1952656] New: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes.
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952656 Bug ID: 1952656 Summary: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: install-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: mattison.computer(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The F33 (and newer) "DNF System Upgrade" instructions document has a couple of minor issues, and one more serious problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-33, and probably newer. How reproducible: not applicable. Steps to Reproduce: 1. not applicable. 2. not applicable. 3. not applicable. Actual results: not applicable. Expected results: not applicable. Additional info: I. The "Clean-Up Old Packages" Section (2 minor issues). In the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section, the instructions first say to do "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied", and then to do "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates". After that, there is a "NOTE" box saying to first do "sudo dnf update". After the "NOTE" box, the instructions say to do "sudo dnf list extras", and so on. A. Assuming that the "NOTE" box is saying to do the "sudo dnf update" before doing the "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied" and the "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates", the box should be moved to between * the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section title, and * the instruction to do "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied". So it should be: 1. The section title "Clean_Up Old Packages"; 2. The "NOTE" box for sudo dnf update"; 3. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied"; 4. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates"; and 5. instructions to run "sudo dnf list extras", and so on. B. According to the dnf man page, the "update" command is deprecated. It is now "upgrade". So the dnf command in the "NOTE" box discussed above should be "sudo dnf upgrade", not "sudo dnf update". II. The "Clean-Up Old Symlinks" Section (more serious problem). In the Fedora users list, in the thread "invisible application after upgrade", one member said that the "sudo symlinks -r -d /usr" step isn't necessarily a good idea. He provided an example. There was a little more discussion in the Fedora users list thread "dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").". This section needs to be either redone or deleted. I do not have the expertise to be more specific. I am a home user with no training as a sys.admin. I have a stand-alone home work station. I do my own systems administration. So I rely on the Fedora "DNF System Upgrade" document to guide me through semi-annual upgrades. I ask that this section be researched and either improved or deleted as appropriate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1957968] New: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 08 Jun '22

08 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957968 Bug ID: 1957968 Summary: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: wireless-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: hk(a)hsyn.de QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: sradvan(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: WiFi Connection can't be established with the Fedora 34 via WPS-PBC. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): OS: Fedora 34 live USB stick. Rooter: Fritz!Box 7590 v7.27 Notebook: ThinkPad w520 How reproducible: Start Fedora 34 from USB stick. Try to connect to a WPA&WPA2 Secured WiFi. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Connection can't established. Expected results: Authentication without manual key enter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 1893428] New: netinstall image requirement for using kickstart could be made clearer
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 Jun '21

21 Jun '21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893428 Bug ID: 1893428 Summary: netinstall image requirement for using kickstart could be made clearer Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: install-guide Severity: low Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: glaebhoerl(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Based on the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/install-guide/advanced/Kick… page, I attempted to add an inst.ks= boot option to my Fedora Workstation installation image (after copying its contents to a FAT32 filesystem). This resulted, when beginning the installation, in the message: "Kickstart is not supported on live installs. This installation will continue interactively." Googling for this message found single-digit hits, almost all of which were for the several-years-old commit which originally added the message. It was very unclear to me what I should have been doing instead, and spent most of a day fruitlessly googling to try to find out. Every page only ever said that I needed to add a boot option to the kernel command line of the installer (which is what I believed myself to be doing), and went from there. The root of the issue is that it was not apparent to me what the alternative to a "live install" was, or how to activate it. (Maybe I needed to pass different boot options so that it would boot directly into the installer?? I spent a while trying different ways to achieve this.) "Kickstart is not supported on live installs" may have been sufficient information back in the day when live and non-live installation images were provided side by side, but these days, at least for the Workstation version, live is the only download option prominently visible, and it is not even called out as being such. Finally, after trying the twentieth combination of search terms, I found that the page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/install-guide/install/Prepa… mentions that "Kickstart installation requires the netinstall media type, or a direct installation booting method such as PXE; kickstarts are not supported with live images". I admit that if I had read all of the instructions linearly from beginning to end, then I would probably not have had this problem. Nonetheless, I humbly suggest that if the "Automating the Installation with Kickstart" page also made some mention of this requirement, it would be a helpful thing. In addition, it might be helpful to extend the "kickstart is not supported on live installs" error message with some mention of the suggested alternatives as well. Thank you for your work and attention. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 8

[Bug 1176580] no rescue mode in menu
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 25 May '21

25 May '21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176580 gm11 <bpxhq(a)s.gnet.hu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bpxhq(a)s.gnet.hu --- Comment #4 from gm11 <bpxhq(a)s.gnet.hu> --- what is the option to rescue mode? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa May 2021