[Bug 1596438] New: Missing `fedpkg request-branch`
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596438
Bug ID: 1596438
Summary: Missing `fedpkg request-branch`
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: packager-guide
Assignee: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Reporter: amahdal(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pkovar(a)redhat.com
Description of problem
======================
In Join_the_package_collection_maintainers, the step "Import, commit, and build
your package" is directly followed by "Update Your Branches (if desired)", and
"Submit Package as Update in Bodhi".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd...
However the step "update branches" cannot succeed, since branches are not
created automatically. Sure, this step is optional, but even opting out, the
next step about Bodhi won't be valid, because pushing master to Bodhi is not
allowed.
Easiest fix would be to add command such as `fedpkg request-branch f28`, as
I've been advised on mailing list and IRC:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
One more note: to new packager, it's not clear if they should "desire" to
update/push to new branches; because new packager might not expect this (adding
new package to already released branch) to be allowed by policy. It would be
nice to give a hint to the packager on this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
5 years, 10 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #9 from Mai Ling <mailinglists35(a)gmail.com> ---
and another stupid thing is that you must specify the physical interface name
like in traditional iptables, but I expected it to integrate nicely with
networkmanager and I expected to be able to write connection names, not
interface names, and then I expected it to automatically translate to physical
interface names!
but I guess I have too high expectations of firewalld...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
5 years, 11 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #8 from Mai Ling <mailinglists35(a)gmail.com> ---
this is even more stupid. direct rules do not work with interface 'any', you
must explicitly set both physical interface name for input and output.
so "-i interface1 -o any" does not work! (tested on RHEL 7.5)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
5 years, 11 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
Mai Ling <mailinglists35(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mailinglists35(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Mai Ling <mailinglists35(a)gmail.com> ---
this is stupid. having to add direct rules is stupid. why does not firewalld
offer a native way to add rules to chain FORWARD in table filter?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
5 years, 11 months