docs-qa September 2023

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
28 discussions

[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to my observations, some few sections deserve to be up-to-date as they lead the reader to conclude that the guide is obsolete and therefore do not apply to contemporary release of Fedora products.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 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

[Bug 2180561] New: Infinite loop after attempting recovery
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 13 Oct '23

13 Oct '23

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180561 Bug ID: 2180561 Summary: Infinite loop after attempting recovery Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: selinux-user-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: satensteinl(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: mprpic(a)redhat.com, pkennedy(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Here is a situation that has happened to a Fedora laptop workstation user several times. 1) A modification is made to /etc/fstab (addition,correction,etc) 2) The individual fails to run sudo systemctl daemon-reload on laptop 3) On reboot, the system (presume it is selinux) blocks the boot of the workstation logon prompt is not reached. Linux wants user input. 4) The use than reruns the grub boot using recovery option. 5) The recovery option fails to add a ./autorelabel to / 6) The user reboots with no remedial action done. 7) User adds the ./autorelabel to / and reboots 8) The autorelabel takes effect, but then, all of 9) The file system's (parttions) are not in RW mode and... The autorelabel is shutdown with a Reboot because each filesystem is in RO mode for ./autorelabel. 9) Infinite loop on the laptop. I have tried to do the recovery using the Everything.iso as the recovery partition on that ISO was working up to version 36. The keyword is "was". Required ======== A recovery mode for the workstation iso that actually allows autorelabel recovery. Workstation is way way more popular than Everything.iso and way way more popular than KDE version of Fedora. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 37.38. 39(rawhide) How reproducible: revise /etc/fstab without running sudo systemctl daemon-reload. Steps to Reproduce: 1. See above. 2. 3. Actual results: Infinite loop, (for laptop, requires a reinstallation. Expected results: Autorelabel should somehow update RO file systems. Additional info: I was using the /everything.iso Recovery menu entry. Up to Fed 37, that was working. But that recovery option has to be checked against Fedora 38, and also provided for Gnome, KDE, and Cinnamon spins (or all spins). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180561

1 2

[Bug 1008228] SSD cache
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Sep '23

27 Sep '23

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008228 Bug 1008228 depends on bug 1003208, which changed state. Bug 1003208 Summary: anaconda needs bcache support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003208 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008228

1 0

[Bug 1008227] SSD cache
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Sep '23

27 Sep '23

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008227 Bug 1008227 depends on bug 1003208, which changed state. Bug 1003208 Summary: anaconda needs bcache support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003208 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008227

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa September 2023