[Bug 1283087] New: Typo in F23 section 5.2.1
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283087
Bug ID: 1283087
Summary: Typo in F23 section 5.2.1
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: magfr(a)lysator.liu.se
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
Currently the text reads
5.2.1. Eclipse
... Mars (4.5) release. Som enew key features ...
That should be
5.2.1. Eclipse
... Mars (4.5) release. Some new key features ...
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
23
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Look at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Release_Notes/sect-Re...
Actual results:
Sees the type 'Som enew'
Expected results:
Sees the correctly spelled version 'Some new'
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 years, 5 months
[Bug 1285374] New: F23 release notes don't mention that OpenSSH 7.0 disabled ssh-dss public keys by default
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285374
Bug ID: 1285374
Summary: F23 release notes don't mention that OpenSSH 7.0
disabled ssh-dss public keys by default
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: mstahl(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Blocks: 151189 (fc-relnotes-traqr)
Fedora 22 to Fedora 23 upgrades OpenSSH from 6.9 to 7.1, but the release notes
only mention 7.1 and don't mention the default configuration changes that
happened in 7.0, such as the disabling of ssh-dss public keys that may prevent
a login to/from upgraded systems without explicit command line parameters.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Release_Notes/sect-Re...
Actual results:
it only links to 7.1 release notes.
"3.4.2. OpenSSH 7.1
The OpenSSH project continues to improve the security of network communication
with the release of OpenSSH 7.1. See the upstream release notes for detailed
information about this release."
Expected results:
there should be at least a link to the OpenSSH 7.0 release notes too;
possibly explicitly mentioning the disabling of public keys.
http://www.openssh.com/txt/release-7.0
"Support for ssh-dss, ssh-dss-cert-* host and user keys is disabled by default
at run-time. To temporarily enable existing host keys, use the command line
option '-oHostKeyAlgorithms=ssh-dss' and to enable existing user keys, use
'-oPubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes=ssh-dss'."
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151189
[Bug 151189] Fedora release notes tracker bug
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 years, 5 months
fedora_requires_release_note canceled: [Bug 1285067] Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> has canceled Zbigniew
Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>'s request for
fedora_requires_release_note:
Bug 1285067: Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with
Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285067
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1285067-python-
pyxid/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5
(OK, not needed.)
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-pyxid , python3-pyxid
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
No upstream test suite.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-pyxid-1.1-0.1.gitc84afe9.fc24.noarch.rpm
python3-pyxid-1.1-0.1.gitc84afe9.fc24.noarch.rpm
python-pyxid-1.1-0.1.gitc84afe9.fc24.src.rpm
python2-pyxid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXperiment ->
experiment, experiments
python2-pyxid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePrime -> e
Prime, prime, primmer
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXperiment ->
experiment, experiments
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePrime -> e
Prime, prime, primmer
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-35.opt-1.py
c
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/internal.cpython-35.opt-1.py
c
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/pyxid_impl.cpython-35.opt-1.
pyc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/keymaps.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/serial_wrapper.cpython-35.op
t-1.pyc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/constants.cpython-35.opt-1.p
yc
python-pyxid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXperiment ->
experiment, experiments
python-pyxid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePrime -> e Prime,
prime, primmer
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
All OK.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/keymaps.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/internal.cpython-35.opt-1.py
c
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/pyxid_impl.cpython-35.opt-1.
pyc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-35.opt-1.py
c
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/constants.cpython-35.opt-1.p
yc
python3-pyxid.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pyxid/__pycache__/serial_wrapper.cpython-35.op
t-1.pyc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
All OK.
Requires
--------
python3-pyxid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-pyserial
python2-pyxid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pyserial
python(abi)
Provides
--------
python3-pyxid:
python3-pyxid
python2-pyxid:
python-pyxid
python-pyxid(x86-64)
python2-pyxid
Package is APPROVED.
8 years, 5 months
[Bug 1282631] New: Wrong common bug link in Feedback
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282631
Bug ID: 1282631
Summary: Wrong common bug link in Feedback
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jb.holcroft(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
The link on "feedback" doesn't work :
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora_.html#sect-Release_Notes-Feedback
if it were correct, it would be wrong because zanata on document f23 tells me
it's this link in production : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F21_bugs
you can see it in Zanata here :
https://fedora.zanata.org/webtrans/translate?project=fedora-release-notes&iteration=f23&localeId=fr&locale=fr#view:doc;doc:pot/Feedback;untranslated:show;fuzzy:show;rejected:show
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 years, 6 months
[Bug 1282629] New: Perl 5.2.2 or 5.22 ?
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282629
Bug ID: 1282629
Summary: Perl 5.2.2 or 5.22 ?
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Severity: medium
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jb.holcroft(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
I assume there's something wrong with this string :
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Changes_for_Developers.html#sect-devel
It should be 5.22 or 5.22.0, translations are impacted, change can be
transparent for many languages (if you can do that)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 years, 6 months