December 2015 - docs-qa - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1245533] New: Documentation for setting up tftp server is missing for last two documentation releases

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245533 Bug ID: 1245533 Summary: Documentation for setting up tftp server is missing for last two documentation releases Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-guide Assignee: swadeley(a)redhat.com Reporter: valent.turkovic(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com Description of problem: I have tried setting up tftp server on fedora and failed miseably after 2 hours of trying. There is only a brief mention in Fedora 20 docs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/20/html/Installation_Guide/s1... But crucial config file is missing after installing tftpd server. Is this method abandoned? There is no mention of allowing ports for tftp in firewall. On previous Fedora installs this worked, I installed tftpd and allowed tftp ports in firewall, but now it doesn't work anymore. Is there some additional layer of security that it preventing clients from connecting to tftp server? Please document this and also show how to troubleshoot. Thanks. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: Document URL: Section Number and Name: Describe the issue: Suggestions for improvement: Additional information: Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 2 months

1
4
0 / 0

[Bug 1136030] New: Need a new chapter about upgrading Fedora

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136030 Bug ID: 1136030 Summary: Need a new chapter about upgrading Fedora Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: pbokoc(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co The current upgrade chapter is pretty much completely useless. We need a new one that would cover: * Automatic upgrades with FedUp, including how to prepare and how to clean up after the update finishes * Manual upgrade (or reinstall) - manually booting the installer on an existing system and using the normal installation process to overwrite the root filesystem while keeping the rest of the system (/home and any other separate filesystems) intact. There should be ample documentation on FedUp on the Fedora Wiki. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 2 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1018500] New: There's no section in the documentation for NFS, after Fedora 14

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018500 Bug ID: 1018500 Summary: There's no section in the documentation for NFS, after Fedora 14 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: storage-administration-guide Assignee: ddomingo(a)redhat.com Reporter: david.jones74(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: ddomingo(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: There's no section in the documentation for current Fedora versions, about how to configure NFS. There's SAMBA and FTP, but no NFS. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Search or browse documentation. 2. 3. Actual results: Can find scattered information about configuring NFS, but no consolidated section. Expected results: Section for configuring NFS clients and servers. Additional info: There are many changes in NFS configuration since Fedora 14. There's a different init system with different service names, There's also a new firewall manager. I'm just guess at a lot of the details, and it's pretty frustrating. Why does SAMBA have a large detailed section, and NFS has nothing? This is Linux, right? Is the Fedora Project moving to SAMBA as the preferred file sharing method? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 2 months

1
5
0 / 0

[Bug 1290789] New: Preparing Boot Media instructions result in The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 2048 bytes, but Linux says it is 512 bytes.

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290789 Bug ID: 1290789 Summary: Preparing Boot Media instructions result in The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 2048 bytes, but Linux says it is 512 bytes. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: pcfe(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Following the instructions of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Installation_Guide/se... results in a USB stick where the remaining space is not usable. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Installing Fedora 23 on 32 and 64-bit AMD and Intel Edition 1 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. read the F23 Preparing Boot Media instructions 2. dd if=Fedora-Live-Security-x86_64-23-10.iso of=/dev/sdl 3. unplug and re-plug drive 4. gnome-disks 5. (within gnome-disks UI) unmount any partition of /dev/sdl that may have been mounted by the desktop environment 6. try to use the remaining space (31GB in my case) by creating a slice (luks+ext4 in this case) Actual results: Warning: The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 2048 bytes, but Linux says it is 512 bytes. Expected results: Install instructions result in a LIVE USB image that is bootable on BIOS and UEFI and remaining space of USB disk can be reclaimed. Additional info: Same result if, instead of dd, I use gnome-disks' Restore Disk Image option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1266693] New: 3.3.1 Verifying checksums on Windows systems not correct

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266693 Bug ID: 1266693 Summary: 3.3.1 Verifying checksums on Windows systems not correct Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: fran_hermida(a)hotmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: Powershell command for getting expected checksum not correct: $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() Should be: $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[3].ToLower() since checksum file content is: SHA256 (Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-22-3.iso) = 615abfc89709a46a078dd1d39638019aa66f62b0ff8325334f1af100551bb6cf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1282226] New: Incorrect Commands for Verifying Checksums on Windows 10

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282226 Bug ID: 1282226 Summary: Incorrect Commands for Verifying Checksums on Windows 10 Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: ajstewart426(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: I tried the instructions for verifying checksums on Windows (section 3.3.1) but ran into a problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 23 iso download, Windows 10 computer How reproducible: Follow the instructions detailed in section 3.3.1 of the install-guide on a Windows 10 computer. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download the Fedora checksum file 2. Open a powershell session 3. Change to the directory containing the checksum file 4. Run the following commands: > $image = "Fedora-Server-DVD-x86_64-21.iso" > $checksum_file = "Fedora-Server-21-x86_64-CHECKSUM" > $sha256 = New-Object -TypeName System.Security.Cryptography.sha256CryptoServiceProvider > $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() > echo "Expected Checksum: $expected_checksum" Actual results: "sha256sum" Expected results: "a91eca2492ac84909953ef27040f9b61d8525f7ec5e89f6430319f49f9f823fe" Additional info: The correct checksum is actually in the fourth and final position of the string after being split. I recommend replacing the [0] in the instructions with a [-1], assuming that you are able to recreate this problem. If not, let me know and I'll try to provide a more detailed report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1226101] New: $expected_checksum not correct in "Verifying checksums on Windows systems"

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226101 Bug ID: 1226101 Summary: $expected_checksum not correct in "Verifying checksums on Windows systems" Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: iam(a)nnutter.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Created attachment 1031533 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1031533&action=edit Fedora-Workstation-22-x86_64-CHECKSUM Description of problem: When following the steps in "Verifying checksums on Windows systems" the value of the `$expected_checksum` is 'sha256' because it is splitting the line and grabbing the first word. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 22, full URL in "Additional info". How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-22-3.iso. 2. Download Fedora-Workstation-22-x86_64-CHECKSUM.txt. 3. Follow PowerShell instruction from "Verifying checksums on Windows systems". Actual results: `$expected_checksum` equals 'sha256'. PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $checksum_file = "Fedora-Workstation-22-x86_64-CHECKSUM.txt" PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $image = "Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-22-3.iso" PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $expected_checksum sha256 Expected results: `$expected_checksum` equals '615abfc89709a46a078dd1d39638019aa66f62b0ff8325334f1af100551bb6cf'. PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[3].ToLower() PS C:\Users\...\Downloads> $expected_checksum 615abfc89709a46a078dd1d39638019aa66f62b0ff8325334f1af100551bb6cf Additional info: I've attached the "Fedora-Workstation-22-x86_64-CHECKSUM.txt" since it is not very large but it's from, https://getfedora.org/verify The "Verifying checksums on Windows systems" page is, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/Installation_Guide/se... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1146950] New: Test Bug

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146950 Bug ID: 1146950 Summary: Test Bug Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: system-administrator's-reference-guide Assignee: jhradile(a)redhat.com Reporter: jhradile(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: swadeley(a)redhat.com This is just a test bug. Please, feel free to ignore it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1068889] New: Remove references to version numbers in package documentation directories

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068889 Bug ID: 1068889 Summary: Remove references to version numbers in package documentation directories Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: sclark(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com Created attachment 866496 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=866496&action=edit The attached archive contains patches to implement this change Following instructions in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs remove the version number from the directory name for all references to any package documentation directory in /usr/share/doc , leaving just the package's name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1098298] New: Some problems in "Chapter 11. Storage pools"

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098298 Bug ID: 1098298 Summary: Some problems in "Chapter 11. Storage pools" Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: virtualization-administration-guide Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com Reporter: bughunt(a)gluino.name QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com In: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Virtualization_Adminis... I want to create storage pools using virsh. Corrections: Create the storage pool definition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The path to a file system directory for storing guest image files. If this directory does not exist, virsh will create it." This is incorrect. "You have to create it afterwards using virsh" is correct. Create the local directory - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I create the directory under "/home" Documentation shows that "ls -la /guest_images" shows the directory having permissions "700". This is incorrect, the permissions are "755" (at least for me) Improvement: Maybe one should also add the output of ls --lcontext -la /guest_images/ drwxr-xr-x. 2 system_u:object_r:home_root_t:s0 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 . drwxr-xr-x. 5 system_u:object_r:home_root_t:s0 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 .. The wrong permissions error is repeated under "6. Verify the storage pool configuration": ls -la /guest_images/ total 8 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 . drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root 4096 May 15 18:50 .. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

8 years, 3 months

1
1
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa December 2015