[Bug 1956227] New: DNF System Upgrade page links to non-existent
component=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956227
Bug ID: 1956227
Summary: DNF System Upgrade page links to non-existent
component=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: install-guide
Severity: high
Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com
Reporter: info(a)skierpage.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
(there's no Fedora Documentation component for Upgrading to a new release, or
Quick Docs)
Description of problem:
I followed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/,
it went smoothly, well done!
But under "Frequently Asked Questions - How do I report issues with the
upgrade?", the step
Search Bugzilla for an existing bug report.
is a link to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=dnf-plugin-system-upgra...
The bug list currently has one open bug 1767781 for the component
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, but this doesn't seem to be a valid component any
more; it's not in the pop-up list when you enter a new bug. I'm not sure what
the correct component is for dnf system-upgrade bugs: some bugs are filed
against dnf, and others against dnf-plugins-extras.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Not applicable.
How reproducible:
Every time.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/
2. Follow the link in "Search _Bugzilla for an existing bug report_."3
3. Try to file a bug.
Actual results:
Only one open bug for dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, and you can't choose this
Fedora component to enter a new bug.
Expected results:
Link should show a list of bugs with current system-update.
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
5 months
[Bug 1952656] New: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes.
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952656
Bug ID: 1952656
Summary: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes.
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: install-guide
Severity: medium
Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mattison.computer(a)yahoo.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
The F33 (and newer) "DNF System Upgrade" instructions document has a couple of
minor issues, and one more serious problem.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Fedora-33, and probably newer.
How reproducible:
not applicable.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. not applicable.
2. not applicable.
3. not applicable.
Actual results:
not applicable.
Expected results:
not applicable.
Additional info:
I. The "Clean-Up Old Packages" Section (2 minor issues).
In the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section, the instructions first say to do "sudo
dnf repoquery --unsatisfied", and then to do "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates".
After that, there is a "NOTE" box saying to first do "sudo dnf update". After
the "NOTE" box, the instructions say to do "sudo dnf list extras", and so on.
A. Assuming that the "NOTE" box is saying to do the "sudo dnf update" before
doing the "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied" and the "sudo dnf repoquery
--duplicates", the box should be moved to between
* the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section title, and
* the instruction to do "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied".
So it should be:
1. The section title "Clean_Up Old Packages";
2. The "NOTE" box for sudo dnf update";
3. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied";
4. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates"; and
5. instructions to run "sudo dnf list extras", and so on.
B. According to the dnf man page, the "update" command is deprecated. It is now
"upgrade". So the dnf command in the "NOTE" box discussed above should be
"sudo dnf upgrade", not "sudo dnf update".
II. The "Clean-Up Old Symlinks" Section (more serious problem).
In the Fedora users list, in the thread "invisible application after upgrade",
one member said that the "sudo symlinks -r -d /usr"
step isn't necessarily a good idea. He provided an example. There was a
little more discussion in the Fedora users list thread "dangling symlinks and
upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").". This section needs to
be either redone or deleted. I do not have the expertise to be more specific.
I am a home user with no training as a sys.admin. I have a stand-alone home
work station. I do my own systems administration. So I rely on the Fedora
"DNF System Upgrade" document to guide me through semi-annual upgrades. I ask
that this section be researched and either improved or deleted as appropriate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
1 year, 9 months
[Bug 1957968] New: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957968
Bug ID: 1957968
Summary: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: wireless-guide
Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com
Reporter: hk(a)hsyn.de
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: sradvan(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
WiFi Connection can't be established with the Fedora 34 via WPS-PBC.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
OS: Fedora 34 live USB stick.
Rooter: Fritz!Box 7590 v7.27
Notebook: ThinkPad w520
How reproducible:
Start Fedora 34 from USB stick. Try to connect to a WPA&WPA2 Secured WiFi.
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Connection can't established.
Expected results:
Authentication without manual key enter
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 1893428] New: netinstall image requirement for using kickstart
could be made clearer
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893428
Bug ID: 1893428
Summary: netinstall image requirement for using kickstart could
be made clearer
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Status: NEW
Component: install-guide
Severity: low
Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com
Reporter: glaebhoerl(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Based on the
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/install-guide/advanced/Ki...
page, I attempted to add an inst.ks= boot option to my Fedora Workstation
installation image (after copying its contents to a FAT32 filesystem). This
resulted, when beginning the installation, in the message:
"Kickstart is not supported on live installs. This installation will continue
interactively."
Googling for this message found single-digit hits, almost all of which were for
the several-years-old commit which originally added the message.
It was very unclear to me what I should have been doing instead, and spent most
of a day fruitlessly googling to try to find out. Every page only ever said
that I needed to add a boot option to the kernel command line of the installer
(which is what I believed myself to be doing), and went from there. The root of
the issue is that it was not apparent to me what the alternative to a "live
install" was, or how to activate it. (Maybe I needed to pass different boot
options so that it would boot directly into the installer?? I spent a while
trying different ways to achieve this.)
"Kickstart is not supported on live installs" may have been sufficient
information back in the day when live and non-live installation images were
provided side by side, but these days, at least for the Workstation version,
live is the only download option prominently visible, and it is not even called
out as being such.
Finally, after trying the twentieth combination of search terms, I found that
the page
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f33/install-guide/install/Pre...
mentions that "Kickstart installation requires the netinstall media type, or a
direct installation booting method such as PXE; kickstarts are not supported
with live images". I admit that if I had read all of the instructions linearly
from beginning to end, then I would probably not have had this problem.
Nonetheless, I humbly suggest that if the "Automating the Installation with
Kickstart" page also made some mention of this requirement, it would be a
helpful thing. In addition, it might be helpful to extend the "kickstart is not
supported on live installs" error message with some mention of the suggested
alternatives as well.
Thank you for your work and attention.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
2 years, 10 months