December 2023 - docs-qa - Fedora mailing-lists

[Bug 2060893] New: Create vision how to handle Perl modules in case of crypto-policies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 31 May '24

31 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060893 Bug ID: 2060893 Summary: Create vision how to handle Perl modules in case of crypto-policies Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: technical-notes Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: mspacek(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora We have Perl modules in Fedora, which are implementing security algorithms directly (in C or Perl). This mean, that we cannot control functionality by crypto-policies. We need to create some vision how this situation handle. Output should be a document, which describe actual situation and suggests real solutions which fix this situation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060893

1 1

[Bug 1855464] New: how to create and activate swapfiles post-install
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 31 May '24

31 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855464 Bug ID: 1855464 Summary: how to create and activate swapfiles post-install Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: docs-requests Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora This feature means by default there will be no swap partition by default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SwapOnZRAM Some folks might want/need disk based swap. swapfiles: pros: easy to setup; no reboot required; supported on btrfs, ext4, xfs; removable cons: hibernation is sketchy. it should work on ext4, might work on xfs, does not work on btrfs (it can but requires a tool to find an offset, due to the lack of a standard interface across all file systems, for automatically finding the offset) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200127192548.GA683123@vader/ partition: pros: no limitations cons: takes up space, isn't resizeable; more complicated/risky to create; requires reboot. Notes: The installer's custom partitioning will continue to permit the creation of a swap partition and will configure for hibernation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 2033158] New: Grub documentation out of date in System Administration Guide
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033158 Bug ID: 2033158 Summary: Grub documentation out of date in System Administration Guide Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: fedora(a)chrisirwin.ca QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Grub2 documentation is out of date in System Administrators Guide. It explains how grub was configured in previous releases, but doesn't explain the current configuration and tools sufficiently/ * systemd Boot Loader Specification (/boot/loader/entries) * grubby description is inaccurate (it says it edits grub.cfg, while it looks like it now edits /boot/loader/entries/*conf files) * location of grub config (/boot/grub2/grub.cfg, even on EFI systems now) * menuentries in grub.cfg (not used now) * Gives instruction to `grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg` several times, but that is not the proper location now * Above command is given for "Editing a Menu Entry" to change kernel command args, but it doesn't do that any more. grubby must be used for that task. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 35 Documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f35/system-administrators-guide… Rawhide documentation appears the same. How reproducible: It's documentation, so every time. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Look at Fedora documentation to see where kernel menuentries are defined 2. Documentation says /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg 3. That is not correct. Actual results: 1. /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg is only a stub to load /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, even on EFI systems (documentation says this file is BIOS only) 2. No kernel menu entries are defined there, either 3. Kernel menu entries defined in /boot/loader/entries/*conf files, and probed by grub via unknown mechanism Expected results: Expected documentation to match and explain grub configuration on a current Fedora system. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033158

1 3

[Bug 1993662] New: In F34 /usr/bin/X process is a wrapper of /usr/libexec/Xorg
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993662 Bug ID: 1993662 Summary: In F34 /usr/bin/X process is a wrapper of /usr/libexec/Xorg Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: sinosuse(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f34/system-administrators-guide… command "ps aux|grep /usr/bin/X" In f34, /usr/bin/X is linked to /usr/bin/Xorg, which is wrapper of /usr/libexec/Xorg. [suse@suse ~]$ ls -altr /usr/bin/X lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Apr 14 18:58 /usr/bin/X -> Xorg [suse@suse ~]$ ls -altr /usr/bin/Xorg -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 277 Apr 14 18:55 /usr/bin/Xorg [suse@suse ~]$ cat /usr/bin/Xorg #!/usr/bin/sh # # Execute Xorg.wrap if it exists otherwise execute Xorg directly. # This allows distros to put the suid wrapper in a separate package. basedir=/usr/libexec if [ -x "$basedir"/Xorg.wrap ]; then exec "$basedir"/Xorg.wrap "$@" else exec "$basedir"/Xorg "$@" fi Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.20.11-1.fc34.x86_64 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: suggest to use command "ps aux|grep Xorg" Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1831542] New: Documentation of PEERNTP variable
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831542 Bug ID: 1831542 Summary: Documentation of PEERNTP variable Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: mlichvar(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The PEERNTP variable, which can be set to "no" in /etc/sysconfig/network in order to disable use of NTP servers provided by the DHCP server, is described in the "Configuring NTP Using ntpd" section, but not in the "Configuring NTP Using the chrony Suite". Both ntp and chrony follow this setting. The documentation should make it clear that NTP servers provided by DHCP are enabled by default. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[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 2252499] New: problem with ask.fedoraproject.org cert
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252499 Bug ID: 2252499 Summary: problem with ask.fedoraproject.org cert Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: homepage Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: stanley.king(a)acm.org QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dimitris(a)glezos.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome forbid navigation to ask.fedoraproject.org, due to its cert being for *.discourse.org. No override is available. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): not applicable How reproducible: often Steps to Reproduce: 1. Connect to https://fedoraproject.org/start 2. click on ask.fedoraproject.org in the "Latest Solved Issues" listing 3. An error page results Actual results: Mozilla Firefox: "Firefox does not trust this site because it uses a certificate that is not valid for ask.fedoraproject.org. The certificate is only valid for *.discourse.org." It's possible to view the certificate. Its issuer is Let's Encrypt, and it's valid from 23 Oct 2023 to 21 Jan 2024. Google Chrome: Less precise information is available. Error "NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID" is issued. It also says, "When Chrome tried to connect to ask.fedoraproject.org this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials." and "You cannot visit ask.fedoraproject.org right now because the website uses HSTS." Expected results: I would expect this would bring me to the site where Fedora users discuss Fedora. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252499 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 3

[Bug 2248693] New: Link of ISO image of "Fedora 39 Security Lab" is not correct
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2248693 Bug ID: 2248693 Summary: Link of ISO image of "Fedora 39 Security Lab" is not correct Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: about-fedora Severity: urgent Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: sattia(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The advertised link of Fedora 39 Security Lab is not correct. It redirects to a non-existing path with 404 error Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 39 How reproducible: Just visit https://labs.fedoraproject.org/security/download/index.html and try to download the ISO Steps to Reproduce: 1.Visit https://labs.fedoraproject.org/security/download/index.html 2. Click on Download button 3. Wait for the timeout or directly click the provided link 4. Both ways you will get a 404 error Actual results: It redirects to a non-existing path with 404 error Expected results: ISO should be available for download Additional info: The incorrect link from the above steps is https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/releases/39/Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedo… I browsed the website manually and found the ISO in this path https://mirrors.dotsrc.org/fedora-alt/releases/39/respins/Labs/x86_64/Fedor… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2248693 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 1

[Bug 2185155] New: Please list the KDE version bundled with spin
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2185155 Bug ID: 2185155 Summary: Please list the KDE version bundled with spin Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Component: about-fedora Severity: high Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: ddascalescu(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora # Description of problem I'm at https://spins.fedoraproject.org/kde/, trying to figure out if the bundled version if KDE is higher than that of my distro. I can't tell. Googling "KDE version in Fedora spin" doesn't show anything immediately useful. Why the mystery? Please list the version on that page. If it's a plain to maintain the versions up-to-date, please explain at https://spins.fedoraproject.org/en/ how to figure out the version. Also at https://spins.fedoraproject.org/en/prerelease.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2185155

1 1

[Bug 2094692] New: Older release link in the main page has error at Japanese language page
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094692 Bug ID: 2094692 Summary: Older release link in the main page has error at Japanese language page Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Component: homepage Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: qqke6wd9k(a)apricot.ocn.ne.jp QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dimitris(a)glezos.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: At Japanese translation Page of Doc start page, Only "Older release" is link error. so Page Not Found. Japanese Doc : https://docs.fedoraproject.org/ja/docs/ English-US Doc : https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/docs/ I already reported gitlab Fedora Docs page, but not response, so I report in Bugzilla, https://gitlab.com/fedora/docs/docs-website/pages/-/issues/1 not only Japanese but also fr, de , same link error happened. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: every times, Steps to Reproduce: 1. go https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/docs/ 2. change language from English to another non-English kanguage (ja ,fr,de, and so on) 3. click "older release" Actual results: If language is Japanese, the page go https://docs.fedoraproject.org/ja/Fedora/26/html/Release_Notes/index.html this is "page not found" page Expected results: go https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/26/html/Release_Notes/index.html Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094692

1 1

[Bug 2037234] New: [getfedora.org] Fedora help menu is not contextual to the current edition
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037234 Bug ID: 2037234 Summary: [getfedora.org] Fedora help menu is not contextual to the current edition Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: homepage Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: pprinett(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dimitris(a)glezos.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: On all pages of getfedora.org I am presented with a blue header bar containing three menus: "Editions", "Help" and "Wiki". Those items are universal in the context of Fedora: when clicking on "Help->Documentation" for example, I am asked to choose from all possible help topics independently of the page I am currently seeing. This behaviour, which is easy to understand on the Fedora home page, can be confusing when I land (say, from a search engine) directly on the page of a specific Fedora edition. For example: upon landing on the Fedora IoT downloads page[1], I might want to check the docs. If I click on "Help->Documentation" (the only apparent link to the docs), I am presented a list of many products to choose from, whereas I expected to navigate in the context of Fedora IoT. Perhaps the problem could be solved by simply adding a "Documentation" link next to "Overview" and "Download" in the gray header bar, which (as opposed to the blue one) is apparently contextual to the specific edition I am seeing. [1]: https://getfedora.org/en/iot/download/ [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/iot/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037234

1 2

[Bug 2037222] New: [getfedora.org] Fedora IoT download formats are not documented
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037222 Bug ID: 2037222 Summary: [getfedora.org] Fedora IoT download formats are not documented Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: homepage Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: pprinett(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dimitris(a)glezos.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: On the Fedora IoT downloads page[1], I am presented with two formats: "Raw Images" versus "Installer ISOs". It is not explained why I would choose one over the other. [1]: https://getfedora.org/en/iot/download/ Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora IoT 35 How I got there: 1. I searched 'Fedora iot' in your favourite search engine 2. I landed on 'https://getfedora.org/iot/' 3. I clicked 'Download' in the top right-hand corner of the page Actual results: I am presented the two format options without any explanation Expected results: I am presented the download format that matches the documentation Additional info: In the Fedora IoT documentation[2], neither the words "Raw Image" nor "Installer ISO" seem to be ever mentioned. In both the "Getting Started" sections "Setting up a Virtual Machine" and "Setting up a Physical Device", the command-line examples refer to the downloaded file as `Ferora-IoT-[version].raw.xz` (and not .iso). [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/iot/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037222

1 2

[Bug 1997970] New: Typo on release page of a package on package.fedoraproject.org
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997970 Bug ID: 1997970 Summary: Typo on release page of a package on package.fedoraproject.org Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: homepage Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: eva.timbs(a)you-spam.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: dimitris(a)glezos.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora When clicking on a release of a package the new site, e.g. [1], displays a back link near the top with the description "↵ Retrun to the main page of <pkg>". Note the misspelled "Return". [1] https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/kernel/kernel/fedora-rawhide.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 2011723] New: Backport fix to ps man page documentation
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011723 Bug ID: 2011723 Summary: Backport fix to ps man page documentation Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: docs-requests Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: mallika.bachan(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Document URL: Section Number and Name: Describe the issue: Suggestions for improvement: Additional information: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011723

1 2

[Bug 1878577] New: Grammar Mistake
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878577 Bug ID: 1878577 Summary: Grammar Mistake Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: documentation-guide Severity: low Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: ali.cruz(a)me.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Group: fedora_contrib_private Classification: Fedora Created attachment 1714711 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1714711&action=edit Grammar mistake Document URL: selinux-managing-confined-services-guide Section Number and Name: LOGO Describe the issue: DOUMENTACIÓN de Fedora Suggestions for improvement: Additional information: selinux-managing-confined-services-guide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[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 2021927] New: Updates and enhancements needed
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021927 Bug ID: 2021927 Summary: Updates and enhancements needed Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: freeipa-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: ricky.tigg(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mkosek(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Created attachment 1841070 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1841070&action=edit Observations and suggestions Hello. Here is a well composed and written document that has aged without having suffered hard the passage of time. Well done. According to my observations, some few sections deserve to be up-to-date as they lead the reader to conclude that the guide is obsolete and therefore do not apply to contemporary release of Fedora products. Who knows, maybe the required rectifications could be produced in correlation with the up-coming releases of Fedora 36 products – that’s Fedora 2x18! Source: https://docs.fedoraproject.org | Fedora 18 | Edition 3.1.5 | Ella Deon Lackey | Release year: 2012 | Version number of component freeipa this document was made against: 2.2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021927

1 2

[Bug 1889931] New: feature request: release notes document status of systemd-homed for install and upgrade to fedora33
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889931 Bug ID: 1889931 Summary: feature request: release notes document status of systemd-homed for install and upgrade to fedora33 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: release-notes Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: william.garber(a)att.net 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: would like some easy to find documentation on status of systemd-homed setup for install and/or upgrade to fedora33. i.e. what happens to standard home directory on upgrade. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora 32 upgrade to fedora 33 How reproducible: would like to know how this works before installing. Additional info: was not so easy to find on web. should be more easy to find on fedora website. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1831872] New: Legacy DNF enable repo documentation from gnome-wiki
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831872 Bug ID: 1831872 Summary: Legacy DNF enable repo documentation from gnome-wiki Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: documentation-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: csiterallat(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: jhradile(a)redhat.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Document URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces#gdb Section Number and Name: nstalling debuginfo RPMs using DNF Describe the issue: This command is doesn't work, it's Legacy! dnf --enablerepo=fedora-debuginfo --enablerepo=updates-debuginfo install <pkg-spec>-debuginfo Suggestions for improvement: TRUE ENABLE REPO COMMAND ON FEDORA 32: sudo dnf config-manager --set-enabled fedora-debuginfo updates-debuginfo Additional information: This link is come frome gnome-wiki (https://wiki.gnome.org/Community/GettingInTouch/Bugzilla/GettingTraces/Dist…) I try to install debuginfo packages for totem, but this documentation is not so helpful :( -- 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 1850288] New: Page Missing - v22 - multiboot-guide - "6.3.2.2. Reinstalling GRUB on BIOS systems."
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850288 Bug ID: 1850288 Summary: Page Missing - v22 - multiboot-guide - "6.3.2.2. Reinstalling GRUB on BIOS systems." Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: multiboot-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: sy(a)josiahluscher.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: me(a)petetravis.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Entire documentation section missing. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): v22 How reproducible: Very Easy Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open the following page with web browser: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/Multiboot_Guide/GRUB-re… Actual results: Header is displayed with no content. Expected results: Enlightenment(?) Additional info: My server won't boot! Plasse HALP! [Sad Human] -- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1859811] New: The appdata guidance is out of date
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859811 Bug ID: 1859811 Summary: The appdata guidance is out of date Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: packager-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: t0dd(a)protonmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: If you go looking for guidance for how to package RPMs, there is really no better guide than what Fedora produces. It is therefore that much more important that Fedora keeps up with Freedesktop.org standards. The problem is that the "Packaging Guidelines for AppData Files" is out of date and wrong. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ As of July 23, 2020 Actual results: Let's just tick off the problems (just a few, it needs a revamp) - .metainfo.xml files are now preferred and .appdata.xml is deprecated - example .xml file has wrong component type and id """ <component type="desktop"> <id>comical.desktop</id> """ ...that should be... """ <component type="desktop-application"> <id>comical</id> """ ...better yet, that should be... """ <component type="desktop-application"> <id>com.example.Comical</id> """ It's also missing the launchable tag """ <launchable type="desktop-id">com.example.Comical.desktop</lauchable> """ Expected results: See above. Additional info: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[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 1997353] New: fedora everything 34 checksum page broken
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997353 Bug ID: 1997353 Summary: fedora everything 34 checksum page broken Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: schartnerw(a)outlook.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Document URL: https://getfedora.org/static/checksums/Fedora-Everything-34-1.2-x86_64-CHEC… Section Number and Name: Describe the issue: when I want to download the checksum file via verify the error message page not found appears Suggestions for improvement: Additional information: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa December 2023