docs-qa December 2023

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
27 discussions

[Bug 1790615] New: AppStream (formerly AppData) packaging guidelines use outdated terms and example code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Bug ID: 1790615 Summary: AppStream (formerly AppData) packaging guidelines use outdated terms and example code Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: packager-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: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 * The example .appdata.xml file in the Fedora guidelines is therefore also out of date.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

[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 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa December 2023