Looking at the Kickstart and Boot Options sections, there are lists of
options which are already written in the Red Hat docs.
The Kickstart options are a very long list:
The legal notices say Open Publication Licence (rather than GNU FDL),
but also "distribution of substantively modified versions of this
document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without
a licencing problem ?
I'm going away for a couple of days, so this release is to update the
guide with the changes suggested so far.
- The term "disc" replaces "CD" in all sections, to address DVD
- The text of the Root Password section has been altered.
- Text of Tip boxes for Setup Agent sections has been altered to avoid
use of the passive voice.
- Various other minor amendments.
- Configuring Network Installation Servers has been updated to include
The material I have now looks almost like a complete guide, although
it's a bit short of being that. So I've made it buildable rather than
keep throwing files into Bugzilla. I've also revised the markup in all
files to bring them into line with Fedora docs.
There are a number of blank sections, some because I haven't got the
resources to test these features properly:
- Partitioning (as discussed, probably needs somebody with a multi-disc
- Boot Loader (as above)
- Dual Boot
The Network Login configuration in the System User screen has a large
number of options, and may even warrent being broken out into a separate
section (or appendix, since many installations may not use these
features). Realistically I'm not going to be able to tackle a number of
these features, so somebody with a purer UNIX network may be better able
to handle this.
The two other things which are untested are USB boot (Beginning the
Installation) and wireless (the Network Configuration screen, presuming
anaconda can handle wireless cards) - again I don't have the equipment
to test these, although the text is complete as is.
Kickstart and Boot Options appendices may be written up over the next
Still learning as I go along, so all help and comments gratefully
The mirror-tutorial and the usb-hotplug-tutorial have been moved to
block bug 129722 (publication tracker). I believe I have incorporated
all suggested changes from my editor -- thanks, Karsten -- and they
should be ready for final review. I think I followed the workflow
correctly; if not, let the paddling commence!
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
Please forgive this question, I am sure it lands in the RTFM category
but I am having an issue which I would like some help with.
1) I checked out the document's repository from CVS and created a new
2) I replicated the directory structure and made the needed changes to
the Makefile (document name etc.)
3) I ran a make in my new doc's dir and it created the HTML.
Here is the issue.
When I browse to the document locally using Mozilla everything looks
great, to be complete I tar'ed the dir up and sent it over to our
webserver. When I browse to the document on the webserver it seems to
add additional formatting which is causing my document to display a
bunch of question marks all over the place, and little black boxes.
Even viewing the source you can see the problem.
Source viewed when document loaded locally:
<title>Chapter 4. Adding Users
<td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="ch05.html">Next
Source viewed when document viewd over apache server:
align="right">�<a accesskey="n" href="ch05.html">
Can anyone point me in the right direction to fix this problem?
In case you have been wondering what I've been working on the last few
months, here is the email we sent out today to Wide Open Magazine
Basically, the magazine has been renamed Red Hat Magazine, is going
online, is free, and will now include the best parts of Under the Brim.
I will be doing an interview with Fedorazine soon about the change, so
stay tuned for that. I'll post a link on my blog when it is available.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Red Hat <redhat(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: Red Hat <support-bzx5ra8a94ddcqbhrcfd5bysph09a2(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Wide Open Magazine Update
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:00:52 -0000
When the first issue of Wide Open Magazine was published in March
2004, we received great positive feedback. People agreed that the
magazine was a awesome idea and loved the fact that Red Hat finally
had a way to share technical information on a more frequent basis.
As many of you already know, we have been evaluating your feedback
the last few months and are happy to be able to let you in on
our future plans for Wide Open Magazine.
As it turns out, October marks the fifth anniversary of Red Hat's
Under the Brim newsletter. Starting in November, we will be merging
Under the Brim and Wide Open Magazine into a new online publication
feauring the best of both publications. We are calling it
Red Hat Magazine.
A new issue will be published every month. The goal is still the same:
provide in-depth articles on the development and application of open
source technologies. But in addition to what you saw in Wide Open
Magazine, you'll also see features that Under the Brim readers have
come to love, including Ask Shadowman, Tips and Tricks, and more.
We hope you'll like what you see, and look forward to your feedback.
--> Subscribe to email reminders about new issues:
--> Read the Editor's Blog:
The first draft (*very* rough) is available in the Bugzilla entry for
Also available in the bug is a patch for the documentation-guide-en.xml
file to include the new docs-style-en.xml file in a build. Drawbacks I
- It is redundant in spots. In others, it is redundant as well.
I purposely added in my ever-expanding "tips" section without regard to
their duplicating material imported from the GDSG. I will whittle away
at this problem, but am still looking for additional tips, "gotchas,"
and advice to both new and practiced writers.
- It creates additional editing needs on the overall Docs Guide.
Most importantly, front matter needs to be added to take care of GNU
FDL requirements, since I am building off the GDSG. I haven't done this
before and would appreciate assistance from someone who has.
- The organizational structure may be confusing.
If you have comments or suggestions, they're always appreciated.
Originally my thoughts were that the structure would be something like
1. What style means and why it's important
2. General guide to writing technical docs
3. Grammar rules
4. Composition rules
5. Style FAQ (tips, etc.)
Thanks in advance for your input, and I hope everyone has docs ideas
percolating out there. :-) Cheers to all!
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
I know this isn't really a Docs questions, but it's information going
into a docs, and I thought that maybe some of the RH people here might
Is the GCC which ships with FC2 patched with StackGuard? If not, does
StackGuard ship with FC2?
<== tuxxer's gpg key fingerprint ==>
57EB F948 76AE 25BC E340 EFA9 FAF6 E1AC F1E1 1EA1