[Bug 187080] New: RELNOTES - Summarize the release note suggestion/content
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187080
Summary: RELNOTES - Summarize the release note suggestion/content
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Platform: ppc64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: high
Priority: normal
Component: release-notes
AssignedTo: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: nag(a)uk.ibm.com
QAContact: kwade(a)redhat.com
CC: kwade(a)redhat.com
The release notes stats that IBM pSeries machines, which has the POWER5
processors, are supported - great.
pSeries machines can be used in three ways:
1) Stand alone as a SMP machine.
2) Using Logical Partitions with physical resources like real SCSI disks and
Ethernet.
3) Using Logical Partitions with virtual resources like using ibmvscsi and
ibmveth drivers.
It is not clear in the release notes which modes are supported.
I have just tried virtual resources - failed with unable to read package
metadata, failure with a reference to repodata/comps.xml from anaconda Errno 256
I have just tried with physical resources - hangs loading a DAC960 driver, which
is a RAID SCSI card.
If you clarify which modes and hardware Fedora5 has been tested on, we might
avoid many frustrations in Fedora users.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
14 years, 7 months
[Bug 186251] New: RELNOTES - Info needed how to burn iso images to CD/DVD
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186251
Summary: RELNOTES - Info needed how to burn iso images to CD/DVD
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Platform: All
URL: http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc5/#sn-
Installer
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: normal
Component: release-notes
AssignedTo: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: tometzky(a)batory.org.pl
QAContact: kwade(a)redhat.com
CC: kwade(a)redhat.com
In "Installation-Related Notes" there should be an examples on how to burn ISO
images to media using software available in previous FC releases.
For example:
To burn CD iso image ensure that you have "cdrecord" package installed (you
install cdrecord) and use a command like this:
# cdrecord -v -pad -eject -data FC-5-i386-disc1.iso
To burn DVD iso image ensure that you have "dvd+rw-tools" package installed (yum
install dvd+rw-tools) and use a command like this:
# growisofs -dvd-compat -Z /dev/dvd=FC-5-i386-DVD.iso
Warning:
Do not use cdrecord to burn DVD+R media - this will probably not work:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=136665
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
17 years, 2 months
[Bug 185788] New: RELNOTES - Better explanation of PostgreSQL upgrade
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185788
Summary: RELNOTES - Better explanation of PostgreSQL upgrade
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Platform: All
URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/DatabaseServers
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: release-notes
AssignedTo: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: nsoranzo(a)tiscali.it
QAContact: kwade(a)redhat.com
CC: kwade(a)redhat.com
Actually the text is:
"Fedora Core 4 provided version 8.0 of PostgreSQL. If you upgrade an existing
Fedora system with a PostgreSQL database, you must upgrade the database to
access the data."
To me it's not clear that you have to back up _before_ upgrading. I'd rather prefer:
"The internal data storage format changed in respect to the version provided in
Fedora Core 4, PostgreSQL 8.0. Before upgrading an existing Fedora Core system
with a PostgreSQL database, you must back up the data and then restore it after
the upgrade."
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
17 years, 2 months
[Bug 187037] CVS directory included in CDROM image
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: CVS directory included in CDROM image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187037
kwade(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product|Fedora Documentation |Fedora Core
Component|release-notes |fedora-release
------- Additional Comments From kwade(a)redhat.com 2006-04-30 19:50 EST -------
This directory is part of the fedora-release package:
rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/fedora-release-5/figs/CVS/
fedora-release-5-5
Reassigning to the fedora-release component. If there is something we need to
do in the release-notes package, let us know.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
17 years, 11 months
Minor bug report on release note
by Ryoichiro Tsuruno
Hi, I was going through the release note for FC5 and found a very minor
misspelling.
In section 2.1.3. System Level Changes, the last bullet where it talks
about SELinux, Multi-Level Security is abbriviated to (MCS). It should
be MLS.
It is pretty minor, but I just wanted to let you know.
17 years, 12 months
[Bug 998] FTP/NFS install/upgrade is unsafe, should check GPG signatures.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: FTP/NFS install/upgrade is unsafe, should check GPG signatures.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=998
------- Additional Comments From nman64(a)n-man.com 2006-04-24 22:27 EST -------
My thoughts:
1. Chicken-and-egg: What can you trust?
At some point, people just have to apply a certain degree of faith. As long
as their is a complete chain of cryptographic signatures, we simply have to
provide a single trusted source. That source would most likely be the
websites, where we already have SHA1 checksums provided. Users must simply be
able to have faith in our websites.
2. Chain formation:
* We provide checksums for the images on the websites.
* When creating repository configurations for yum, we provide GPG key
locations.
* We provide key fingerprints for our repositories on the websites.
* We place configurations and keys for regular repositories on the install
media.
* Anaconda asks for additional repository information at install time.
* During the installation, missing GPG keys are downloaded *before*
installation.
* The downloaded key fingerprints are presented to the user by Anaconda.
* The user can compare fingerprints to those from the websites.
* Third-party repositories can provide the same information.
* The user has an opportunity to approve or refuse each key.
* Anaconda asks the user whether or not to trust unsigned or unverified
packages.
* Anaconda uses yum to download the packages and verify signatures.
Am I missing anything?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
17 years, 12 months
[Bug 998] FTP/NFS install/upgrade is unsafe, should check GPG signatures.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: FTP/NFS install/upgrade is unsafe, should check GPG signatures.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=998
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|security |normal
Keywords| |Security
------- Additional Comments From samuel(a)bcgreen.com 2006-04-24 04:13 EST -------
It just hit me that multiple repositories aren't that big of a problem -- that's
what the web of trust is for. Red Hat can have a repository signing key that
signs the keys used in 'trusted' repositories. This would not give automatic
trust to those repositories, but people could, at least, be able to trust those
second/third level keys with some level of knowledge that they are, at least,
not using completely anonymous keys.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years
