November 2013 - docs-qa - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 987669] New: Fedora has no support or support limits

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987669 Bug ID: 987669 Summary: Fedora has no support or support limits Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com Created attachment 777472 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777472&action=edit Comments out support limit section The section referencing RHEL/RHEV support limits does not apply to fedora users. The attached patch comments out this section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 4 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 987710] New: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987710 Bug ID: 987710 Summary: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com The section "Guest CPU models" should be updated, comments below: Background: - http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/CPUModels has the QEMU roadmap for relevant features - rawhide/F20 is currently shipping qemu-1.5.1 - F19 is currently shipping qemu-1.4.2 - F18 is currently shipping qemu-1.2.2 - Fedora ships qemu-kvm as /usr/bin/qemu-kvm not /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm The first part of the section states CPU configurations are defined in XML files rather than hardcoded; per the roadmap, they are again hardcoded to allow compatibility code and more unified processor definitions. There's no indication of backwards compatibility from qemu, although virsh and friends may still accept .conf definitions and Know What To Do when talking to qemu. In F18 and F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?cpuid` and `qemu-kvm -cpu ?dump` do not function. In F18, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a terse list of definitions. in F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a more descriptive list, and also includes a comprehensive list of recognized CPU flags. This could possibly replace `?cpuid` In both, `qemu-kvm -cpu <name>,enforce` functions as expected; this content is commented out. Looking further into comparing guest CPU features, I find `virsh capabilities` will generate xml representing the host. It also appears to represent other architectures that the host could emulate - if the appropriate packages (ie qemu-arm ) are installed, and I correctly understand what they do. There's also `virsh cpu-baseline` to generate a cpu definition that would allow migration between file-defined hosts, and `virsh cpu-compare` to compare a defined host with the local host. Both of these rely on [deprecated] xml .conf cpu definition files. I haven't been able to find a more elegant way to compare cpu configurations than scripting together the above virsh commands, presuming `virsh capabilities` works the way I suspect. The qemu roadmap cites `-cpu best` as a way to get the best CPU definition when creating a guest - but it doesn't work here, and I'm not sure how it would make a determination if it did. A lot of the information I've discovered deals directly with qemu, not libvirt. With qemu moving back to hard coded cpu definitions, I think it would be good to get some insight on if libvirt tools are affected and how they are handling the change. In general, I think it would be better to present libvirt commands rather than commands executing qemu directly. I'm not submitting a patch for this one because I'm not sure where to go with it. It *seems* like libvirt should have a simple way to compare the capabilities of heterogeneous hosts and aid in creating the best definitions for guests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 4 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 987674] New: KVM host verification is called KVM guest compatibility, and does not have a direct link

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987674 Bug ID: 987674 Summary: KVM host verification is called KVM guest compatibility, and does not have a direct link Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com Created attachment 777474 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777474&action=edit Change title and add link The section "KVM guest virtual machine compatibility" refers to verifying that a machine is capable of acting as a KVM host, and references the Virtualization Administration Guide. The attach patch changes the title of that section to better reflect the content, and provides a direct link to the referenced content. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 4 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 987664] New: Guide intro references documnetnation that is not available for Fedora

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987664 Bug ID: 987664 Summary: Guide intro references documnetnation that is not available for Fedora Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com Created attachment 777453 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=777453&action=edit Patch commenting out unavailable guides. The introduction to the Virtualization Deployment and Administration Guide references related documentation that has been developed for RHEL/RHEV but is not maintained for Fedora. The attached patch comments out those sections so that only guides that are currently maintained for Fedora will be referenced. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 4 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1036284] New: Please pull French strings from Tx and publish French version

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036284 Bug ID: 1036284 Summary: Please pull French strings from Tx and publish French version Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide Assignee: sparks(a)redhat.com Reporter: jfenal(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: sparks(a)redhat.com Description of problem: French translation of the UEFI Secure Boot Guide is not published. Its translation and proorfreading has been completed, and is ready for publication. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Pull translated strings from Transifex 2. Publish on docs.fp.org 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 831619] New: Inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide”

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831619 Bug ID: 831619 QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Severity: low Version: devel Priority: unspecified CC: ddomingo(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Assignee: r.landmann(a)redhat.com Summary: Inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide” Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: vaskodd(a)yahoo.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: x86_64 Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: power-management-guide Product: Fedora Documentation Created attachment 591487 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=591487&action=edit The problem description in .pdf format - easy to follow Hi, First I want to notice I am a Linux newbie and my English is not that good. Now straight to the point! (The same description is available in the attached pdf file and is more easy to follow) I've noticed some inaccuracy in Fedora 17 “Power Management Guide” (Fedora Documentation), particularly in section “2.5. Tuned and ktune” including “2.5.1. The tuned.conf file” and “2.5.2 Tuned-adm”. In section “2.5. Tuned and ktune” right bellow the “yum install tuned” command it's written: “Installing the tuned package also sets up a sample configuration file at /etc/tuned.conf and activates the default profile.” There is no such file in /etc. I found a /etc/tuned/active_profile file containing the following: “/usr/lib/tuned/balanced/tuned.conf”. I'm not sure this file (/etc/tuned.conf) is missing only on my system or it has a new location by default for each profile - /usr/lib/tuned/profileX/tuned.conf. Bellow in this section and in “2.5.1. The tuned.conf file” it is pointed again that the default location for the tuned.conf file is /etc/tuned.conf. In section “2.5.2 Tuned-adm” in the first paragraph it is written “Fedora 17 includes a number of predefined profiles for typical use cases...”. Just to be precise it is good to be mentioned that these profiles are not installed by default with “yum install tuned” command (tuned-2.0.1-1.fc17 package), but can be found in tuned-profile-compat-2.0.1-1.fc17 package (I found it in Gnome Package Manager). Another thing in this section is in the last third of the page where it is written: “All the profiles are stored in separate subdirectories under /etc/tune-profiles. So /etc/tune-profiles/desktop-powersave contains all the necessary files and settings for that profile. Each of these directories contains up to four files:” There /etc/tune-profiles directory does not exist. Instead I found the profiles stored in /run/lib/tuned. Each directory for the corresponding profile typically contains only 2 files - script.sh and tuned.conf. The presence of script.sh is not mentioned in the directories contains description – it is mentioned ktune.sh insetad. That's all. I hope this is helpful. Best regards Vasil Draganov Fedora 17 3.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64 P.S. “Power Management Guide” is great. It's really useful. The moment i run tuned service i noticed how quieter my laptop became (less heat – less fan needed :) ). The first thing I noticed about new Fedora installation was that the laptop was noisier in comparison to Win7 (I dual-boot with Win7). Tuned just fixed that :) Many thanks to the creators of Fedora Documentation!!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

10 years, 5 months

1
9
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa November 2013