[Bug 1021151] New: X2Go
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021151
Bug ID: 1021151
Summary: X2Go
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: cickumqt(a)gmail.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
orion(a)cora.nwra.com, relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org,
wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998551, 969209, 969212, 969220, 990815, 990817,
991286, 991292, 1004094
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998551 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: X2Go
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/X2Go
The X2Go project has taken over development of the old NX libraries and has
developed new clients and server code around it. We will move to use the X2Go
NX library in Fedora and include the full X2Go suite.
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-08-22 11:20:42 EDT ---
Review of main nx-libs component is stalled.
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-08-31 00:11:58 EDT ---
We seem to be making progress again. Current issues:
- nx-libs should be approved soon
- x2goclient is blocking on a bundled library exception -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/343
- remmina-plugins-nx and qtnx will need to require nxproxy
- freenx-server will need to require nxagent
As a proven packager I can make the above two changes once nx-libs is imported.
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:44:45 EDT ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 Accepted Changes 100%
Completed Deadline is on 2013-10-15 [1].
All Accepted Changes has to be code complete and ready to be
validated in the Beta release (optionally by Fedora QA). Required
bug state at this point is ON_QA.
As for several System Wide Changes, Beta Change Deadline is a
point of contingency plan, all incomplete Changes will be
reported to FESCo for 2013-10-16 meeting. In case of any
questions, don't hesitate to ask Wrangler (jreznik).
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Schedule
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-14 10:28:01 EDT ---
Orion, I can see all tracker bugs closed. Does this mean this Change is
completed now and could be moved to ON_QA?
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-10-14 15:05:26 EDT ---
yes, I think so.
=============================
Tracking bug for inclusion in Release Notes
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969209
[Bug 969209] Review Request: nx-libs - NX X11 protocol compression
libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969212
[Bug 969212] Review Request: x2goclient - Graphical client for use with the
X2Go network based computing environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969220
[Bug 969220] Review Request: x2goserver - Server for use with the X2Go
network based computing environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990815
[Bug 990815] Review Request: x2godesktopsharing - Share X2go desktops with
other users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990817
[Bug 990817] Review Request: python-x2go - Python module providing X2Go
client API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991286
[Bug 991286] Review Request: pyhoca-gui - Graphical X2Go client written in
(wx)Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991292
[Bug 991292] Review Request: pyhoca-cli - Command line X2Go client written
in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998551
[Bug 998551] X2Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004094
[Bug 1004094] Review Request: cups-x2go - CUPS backend for printing from
X2Go
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[Bug 1008196] New: GLIBC 2.18
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008196
Bug ID: 1008196
Summary: GLIBC 2.18
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: codonell(a)redhat.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 999952
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #999952 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: GLIBC 2.18
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/GLIBC218
Switch GLIBC in Fedora 20 to GLIBC version 2.18
--------------------------------------------------------
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184937.html
Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[Bug 1021133] New: docs-check: Shared Certificate Tools
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021133
Bug ID: 1021133
Summary: docs-check: Shared Certificate Tools
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: herrold(a)owlriver.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stefw(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998546
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998546 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: Shared Certificate Tools
For more details, see:
http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/SharedCertificateTools
Fedora now has infrastructure for sharing system trusted certificates between
the various crypto libraries.
--- Additional comment from Stef Walter on 2013-08-29 08:32:51 EDT ---
Substantiably testable using p11-kit-0.19.4 which is in Fedora 20.
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:46:13 EDT ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 Accepted Changes 100%
Completed Deadline is on 2013-10-15 [1].
All Accepted Changes has to be code complete and ready to be
validated in the Beta release (optionally by Fedora QA). Required
bug state at this point is ON_QA.
As for several System Wide Changes, Beta Change Deadline is a
point of contingency plan, all incomplete Changes will be
reported to FESCo for 2013-10-16 meeting. In case of any
questions, don't hesitate to ask Wrangler (jreznik).
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Schedule
===========================
Docs Task: Identify documentation that is impacted by this change and open bugs
as required.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998546
[Bug 998546] Shared Certificate Tools
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[Bug 1044359] New: [F21 Release Notes] Split of bind-chroot subpackage should be documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044359
Bug ID: 1044359
Summary: [F21 Release Notes] Split of bind-chroot subpackage
should be documented
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: thozza(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
The 'bind-chroot' sub-package of bind has been split into two separate
sub-packages:
- bind-chroot (for running named in a chroot)
- bind-sdb-chroot (for running named-sdb in a chroot)
This change should be documented to prevent possible surprises.
For more information please see Doc Text in Bug #997030.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[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
[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
[Bug 1038510] New: After gromacs-4.6.3-2.fc19.i686 install still no package commands
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038510
Bug ID: 1038510
Summary: After gromacs-4.6.3-2.fc19.i686 install still no
package commands
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: defensive-coding-guide
Assignee: fweimer(a)redhat.com
Reporter: vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: fweimer(a)redhat.com, sparks(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
After gromacs-4.6.3-2.fc19.i686 install still no package commands
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
gromacs-4.6.3-2.fc19.i686
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum install gromacs
2. mdrun -h
2b. trconnv -h
...
Actual results:
no commands
Expected results:
commands provided by package available
Additional info:
n/a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months