[Bug 1025475] New: typo in yum update for kexi-mysql
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025475
Bug ID: 1025475
Summary: typo in yum update for kexi-mysql
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: admin(a)velusuniverse.co.uk
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
calligra-kexi-driver-mysql summary says mysqwl driver for kexi but shouldnt it
say mysql driver for kexi ??
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
use the yum extender andd look up calligra-kexi-driver-mysql
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
ummary says mysqwl driver for kexi
Expected results:
mysql driver for kexi
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1017792] New: %verify doesn't know symlink, maj min
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017792
Bug ID: 1017792
Summary: %verify doesn't know symlink, maj min
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: jskarvad(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
In the "Verifying the %files section" chapter of the RPM guide [1], there is
written "symlink", but it seems RPM uses "link" instead.
Also I had trouble with the "maj" and "min", I guess there is "rdev" used
instead.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.1
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. See the "Verifying the %files section" chapter
Actual results:
There are symlink, maj and min
Expected results:
The link and probably rdev
Additional info:
[1]
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1003962] New: RPM scriptlet -p option not documented
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003962
Bug ID: 1003962
Summary: RPM scriptlet -p option not documented
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: rpm-guide
Assignee: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com
Reporter: daniel.neuberger(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com,
zach(a)oglesby.co
The fedora RPM guide does not document the -p option that can be passed to the
RPM scriptlets. It should probably be located here
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...,
but I looked through the entire guide and couldn't find it.
The only only place I could find it documented is here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets, but what it says is
wrong. It says:
"The basic syntax is similar to the %build, %install, and other sections of the
rpm spec file. The scripts support a special flag, -p which allows the
scriptlet to invoke a single program directly rather than having to spawn a
shell to invoke the programs. (ie: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig)"
A more accurate description is:
"The basic syntax is similar to the %build, %install, and other sections of the
rpm spec file.
The scripts support a special flag, -p which specifies the interPreter that
should be used to run the script (the default is /bin/sh). Sometimes the -p
option is used with no body in order to run a single command directly rather
than having to spawn a shell to invoke the programs (i.e. %post -p
/sbin/ldconfig). Note that this form requires that there be nothing but white
space (not even comments) until the next section begins."
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1057882] New: Fedora - Installation Quick Start Guide - An update of the Czech translation ready
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057882
Bug ID: 1057882
Summary: Fedora - Installation Quick Start Guide - An update of
the Czech translation ready
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: publishing-requests
Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: josef.hruska(a)upcmail.cz
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org
Description of problem:
Please publish an updated Czech version of the F20 Installation Quick Start
Guide
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Mostly grammar errors found in current version.
Expected results:
An updated Czech translation published - missing translation(s) added,
translation revision and precision.
Additional info:
If the bug BZ#1056196 is a serious obstacle, publish this update once the bug
is resolved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1050903] New: Fedora - burning ISO images to disc - Updated Czech translation
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050903
Bug ID: 1050903
Summary: Fedora - burning ISO images to disc - Updated Czech
translation
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: publishing-requests
Assignee: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: josef.hruska(a)upcmail.cz
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: docs-publishers-members(a)fedoraproject.org
Description of problem:
Please publish an update of the Czech translation of Burning ISO images to disc
guide
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Translation update - missing translation, revision and precision.
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 985020] New: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985020
Bug ID: 985020
Summary: explain types of rpm packages (what are they for)
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: packager-guide
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Reporter: bvoperdf21(a)mt2014.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
First I'd like to thank for the awesome documentaions available.
Also +1 for the export function (PDF,html-single,...).
Looking at the packagers guide I missed some information.
It would be nice if you also tell what kind of rpm packages are out there.
What I found so far:
.rpm
.src.rpm
.debugsource....
.debuginfo....
For example I still don't know if the debugsource is needed when using gdb for
debugging or if the debuginfo package is enough.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):Edition 18.0.1
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.go to
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/P...
2.read everything
Actual results: no description of the defferent types of rpm packages
Expected results: find description of the defferent types of rpm packages and
what they are used for/by.
Additional info: would be nice to have this
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 959626] New: config_name mismatch in mock example
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora Documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959626
Bug ID: 959626
Summary: config_name mismatch in mock example
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: packager-guide
Severity: low
Priority: unspecified
Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Reporter: axilleas(a)archlinux.gr
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: fnadge(a)redhat.com
Category: ---
Description of problem:
In section 2.4.3. Testing a Package with Mock, the last example uses the
epel-6-x86_64 config whereas Fedora 18 is referenced above.
According to the preamble, the example should read:
mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eject-2.1.5-0.1.fc18.src.rpm
Link:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1198984] New: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198984
Bug ID: 1198984
Summary: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on
a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: cookbook
Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Reporter: razvan.sandu(a)mobexpert.ro
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello,
Description of problem:
Even using the rich-language feature, it is still rather difficult to figure
out
how to use firewalld on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS system that is used as a router
(a "transparent" system).
That's because:
a. administrators will need *different* sets of rules/restrictions for access
to the router itself and to the various services that run beyond the router
(using or non using NAT).
b. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement
their policies (ACCEPT or DROP) and when these policies apply to traffic
bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router.
For example, an administrator needs an *easy* method to restrict VNC access
*to* the router itself (INPUT), but may want free VNC access to some server
located *behind* the router (FORWARD). In the second case, forwarding may (or
may not) imply NAT, depending if he goes on the Internet via the external
interface or simply goes in another LAN segment beyond the router.
c. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement
their trafic rules ( *exceptions* to ACCEPT or DROP default policies) and when
these rules apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that
*traverses* the router.
Additional info:
Even it is not dynamic, the Shorewall application (http://shorewall.net/) acts
as a higher-level language over iptables, offering the same concepts of "zones"
for interfaces. Much of its conceptual architecture is directly applicable
("portable") to firewalld, if accepted by developers.
Somewhat different from conceptual point of view, the "zones" are "levels of
trust surrounding the router", including thr FW zone for the router itself.
(unlike firewalld, the shorewall zones have no "sources" or "services" embedded
in them).
IPv4 and IPv6 zones are completely separated (they actually represent different
levels of trust).
Administrators may directly define policies, i.e. allow *default* actions to be
done when an packet travels from a zone to another (ACCEPT, REJECT). The most
sane policy between any two zones is REJECT (with further exceptions defined as
rules, see below).
Rules are *exceptions to policies* , explicitly defined (based on various
criteria such as source IP, destination IP, ports, etc.)
Rules may be expressed via predefined (or customised) "macros" (which are the
direct equivalent of firewalld's "services").
IPv4 and IPv6 policy and rules are completely separated (IMHO that's good,
since the use of global IPv6 addresses pose completely different security
problems than NATted & externally firewalled IPv4).
Best regards,
Răzvan
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
6 years, 8 months
[Bug 1008227] New: SSD cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008227
Bug ID: 1008227
Summary: SSD cache
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: agk(a)redhat.com, i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com,
jeremy(a)goop.org, jreznik(a)redhat.com, kzak(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, rdieter(a)math.unl.edu,
rolf(a)rolffokkens.nl, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998543, 999690, 1000817, 1001120, 1003208, 1000078,
1003207
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998543 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: SSD cache
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/SSD_cache
Using recent kernel (3.9 and later) features for (fast) SSD caching of (slow)
ordinary hard disks.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-21 13:35:33 EDT ---
I'll build a bcache-tools RPM and a dm-cache-utils rpm (actually bcache-tools
is already available here: bcache-tools-20130820-0.1.fc19.src.rpm).
I'll follow the procedure as described here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-24 11:51:34 EDT ---
Tried to create a dmcache-utils package as well (Bug 1000078) but it doesn't
look really useful. So I'll focus on bcache-tools first. For that I still need
a sponsor.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-27 06:52:40 EDT ---
I closed Bug 1000078 since good userland support requires LVM2 to support
dm-cache. Which will happen 'in the future', but F20 doesn't look feasible to
me.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:21:30 EDT ---
Create Bug 1003207 (bcache support for dracut) which is not blocking for F20,
but probably will be blocking for F21.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-08-31 16:25:06 EDT ---
Create Bug 1003208 (bcache support for anaconda) which is not blocking for F20,
but probably will be blocking for F21.
--- Additional comment from Rolf Fokkens on 2013-09-09 04:18:18 EDT ---
Test day planned: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/415
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185336.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.
6 years, 8 months