fedora and ramdisk
by Moises Beck
Hello,
I' trying to make a ramdisk image using the follow script:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ram bs=1k count=8192
mke2fs -vm0 /dev/ram 8192
mount -t ext2 /dev/ram /mnt/ramdisk
cp -dpRf /root/projetos/ramdisk/ramdisk_ponto_fixo/* /mnt/ramdisk
umount /mnt/ramdisk
dd if=/dev/ram bs=1k count=8192 | gzip -v9 > ramdisk.image.gz
mkimage -A ppc -O linux -T ramdisk -C gzip -a 0 -e 0 -n "Ramdisk Image
Digicon S/A" -d ramdisk.image.gz pRamdisk_ponto_fixo
When I was using Red Hat 9.0, the script ran very well. But when I
installed Fedora core 2 and ran the script, the file ramdisk.image.gz
created was too small (around 40kB), when it must be around 1.6Mb. I
uncompressed the file ramdisk.image.gz and mounted it, and the mount
point showed that the only directory that appears (in /mnt/ramdisk) is
"lost+found". This is very strange, becouse the problem appears only
when I installed Fedora. Does anyone have some clue ?
Thanks,
Moises Beck
19 years, 8 months
Can't unsubscribe from list, PLEASE HELP!
by Fernando
Hi,
I tried several times to unsubscribe from this list with no success.I
click on the link at the end section of the email messages and then log
in to my account. Then I select the option to unsubscribe. After that I
receive an email confirmation, but I still getting the posts from you
guys.
What am I missing?
Thanks in advance!
Fernando,
19 years, 8 months
fedora-entities - a proposal in the flesh
by Karsten Wade
This one has been on my to-do list for a while ...
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/fedora-docs/common/fedora-entities-en.xml
This works fine in my local tree, but since it includes entities
required by the build scripts, it needs more QA.
See below the Background section for implementation steps.
# Background
If you aren't familiar with the concept here, DocBook entities allow us
to objectify common words and phrases that we want to use regularly, and
be able to easily update from a single location. Entries look like
this:
<!-- *************** Fedora version numbers *************** -->
<!ENTITY FCVER "2"> <!-- Current release version of main project -->
<!ENTITY TESTVER "test1"> <!-- Current test number of main project -->
<!ENTITY FCTESTVER "3 &TESTVER;"> <!-- Current test version of main
project -->
In the XML it appears like this:
The information in this FAQ is specific to &FC; &FCTESTVER;. If you
are looking for the FAQ for &FC; &FCVER; ...
Which DocBook converts into:
The information in this FAQ is specific to Fedora Core 3test1. If you
are looking for the FAQ for Fedora Core 2 ...
# Implementing
To take advantage of this common entities file, we need to do the
following:
1. If the common entities file is ready for submission, get it into CVS
in fedora-docs/common. I'll be responsible for making this happen, ye
gods willing.
2. Update your XML to use the common file by first removing the local
versions of similar entities (leave in your true local entities), and
adding this line:
<!ENTITY % FEDORA-ENTITIES-EN SYSTEM "../common/fedora-entities-en.xml">
%FEDORA-ENTITIES-EN;
Note the relative path. Just like the build scripts, you are relying
upon the various build directories in fedora-docs/ being in specific
locations.
The BOOKID entity is still set in each guide locally:
<!ENTITY BOOKID "selinux-faq-1.3 (2004-07-30-T04:20-0800)"> <!-- version
of manual and date -->
I use a LOCALVER entity for the times when my guide is out of sync with
the current FCVER or FCTESTVER in the common entities file. The
LOCALVER would be used like this:
<!ENTITY LOCALVER "3"> <!-- Set value to your choice, when guide
version is out of sync with FC release, use instead of FEDVER or
FEDTESTVER -->
The information in this FAQ is relevant to &FC; &LOCALVER; only and
not to the current or test release.
3. File bugzilla tickets for all the other guides in CVS that need to be
updated to use the new common entities file.
## 30
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer
this .signature subject to random changes
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
19 years, 8 months
Some BZ entries
by Paul W. Frields
#123267 - Fix filename tag in docs-guide
#128903 - Additional content for example-tutorial
#128951 - Add FC2 entry to jargon-buster
#128952 - Tutorial submission: updfstab-tutorial-en
I guess this could be considered an RFC of sorts. For anyone out there
who doesn't know much about bugzilla, just visit
http://bugzilla.redhat.com and use the "Goto bug#" field at the top
right of the front page to visit these bugs. You can see the patches,
enter comments, and so forth. Most of these are small and simple.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
19 years, 8 months
Re: Using elvis?
by Karsten Wade
Did you mean to take this off-list? I accidentally sent this message
directly to you yesterday before bouncing a copy to the list ... since
you are addressing issues that others have brought up, I'm going to save
myself the breath and push this back to fedora-docs-list.
On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 05:10, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 19:18, Karsten Wade wrote:
>
> > I mean something a little more than that. If we had CVS access
> > immediately, we would have zero documents to post and zero changes to
> > make to the website. We have a very few bugs files against just the
> > Documentation Guide.
>
> I've handed two documents over to Tammy. They aren't available.
> At least if they were in CVS they'd be there for someone else to pick
> up?
True.
> >
> > We, meaning all of us contributing to the docs project, are not in
> > control of CVS access. We are in control of the rest of this. We can
> > write patches to the Doc Guide and pass them around the (archived)
> > mailing list.
>
> And if they are not seen to arrive as Fedora documentation, we'd soon
> get pissed off?
I can't help it if someone gets pissed off; to be honest, I'm not in
much of a better situation -- I just write stuff for this project, and I
currently can't write to the Fedora CVS. Still, I'd rather have a
number of items in the queue for when CVS shows up, than have a bunch of
whining in the queue.
This is my style, so you can use it or abuse it: I'd rather do
everything within my power _first_ instead of waiting for Mom to fix it
all for me. I see there being many things we, as a group, can do while
waiting for CVS.
> > So, some suggestions:
> >
> > * If you have a suggestion for something to fix on any of the
> > fedora.redhat.com pages, file a bug, and please reply back to us here
> > with the details and the bugzilla number.
>
> Never having used bugzilla:
> Where does (our project) recommend this process.
> What documents need scrutiny?
> Where's the bugzilla page | instructions whatever?
> More hurdles Karsten?
In the middle of the page at http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ it
has always said the following; it can't be much clearer than this:
"Bug Reporting, Testing, and Quality Assurance
Before you file a bug, please read through the list of current and
previous bugs for fedora-docs to determine if your bug has already been
filed. If your bug does not exists, enter a bug report using the
Bugzilla bug entry page. If your bug exists and has not been fixed, add
additional information to the existing bug. If your bug exists and has
been fixed, upgrade to the version in the bug report to determine if the
bug was properly fixed. If it was not, reopen the bug.
Some other interesting Bugzilla queries:
* All open bugs for fedora-docs
* The requests for enhancements (RFEs) for fedora-docs"
Bugzilla is the tool for reporting problems and requesting features with
any aspect of Fedora. This is no more a hurdle for Fedora docs project
than it is for Fedora Core. Ultimately, it's a better-than-nothing
project management tool for maintainers. Much easier to do a bugzilla
search for all open bugs than comb through this mailing list looking for
someone's suggested fix.
> > When CVS opens for us, we will have a lot of work to do, but it will be
> > good work, instead of starting from scratch.
> No note of this as an interim on the docs project page?
> Its dead meat as far as a project page goes.
> Gathering dust.
I don't have access to update that page. If I were to suddenly have
that access tomorrow, I still don't know exactly what needs to be
updated on that page. If every message on this list reporting what
needs to be changed was a bugzilla report, we'd be much further ahead
than we are now.
> >
> > > > 4. What should be on the fedora.redhat.com/docs pages _right_now_?
> > >
> > > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/
> > > Is that a documentation page for fedora?
> > > There's a link to rh9 doco.
> > > No document list...
> > > What is that page for please?
> >
> > As I understand it, this should be a list all of the documentation that
> > this project produces. It is up to this project and it's leader to
> > decide what should be on that page, which is directly related to all
> > these questions I'm asking.
>
> I don't see a Fedora docs project/leader?
> I see a few people willing to write, others wanting to,
> and nix back from Fedora|Redhat.
I take my philosophy from this page:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/leadership.html
"Leadership
Leadership in the Fedora Project will be post-facto recognition of
acting leaders, not appointment of people to start acting as leaders
after appointment. The leaders that we will recognize will be those who
lead by example, whose goals as expressed in their words and actions are
aligned with our goals (as stated in the Project Objectives and which we
expect to refine over time), and who are willing to be officially
recognized as leaders.
Note that this necessarily means that there will be people acting as
leaders who are not officially recognized on this web page. This is not
meant to denigrate them, or to imply that their opinions are not
worthwhile, or to say that their points are not considered. If the only
leaders we have are the ones that are officially recognized, then we'll
be a dying community. ..."
Right now what this means to me is that if I just say, "I can't do
anything about this stuff except complain, that's the leader's job to
fix," then I'm part of the problem and not the solution.
> > Anywhere on fedora.redhat.com, the left side of the window has a blue
> > stack of links to pages, that open up to reveal somewhat of a tree. If
> > you click on Docs in that link (as I think many visitors might do), it
> > expands to show two documents, the Release Notes and the Jargon Buster,
> > the only successful scratch-to-webpage document from the Fedora docs
> > project.
>
> So its pure future then for documentation.
I don't understand this idiom. Do you mean that the future is wide-open
for creating new documentation? If so, then I agree.
> > That nav bar needs to have more documents, or feeds into versions or
> > areas of documents. We should recommend how that information flows, and
> > of course we need to be filling in the blanks with content. :)
>
> The challenge is to get a user view of documentation. I think its real
> hard to find your way to 'the hole where documentation will be'.
>
> As I see it, the links should be there, the end point being a document
> that says docs wanted on subject X, Subjects Y,Z A are being worked on
> .....
So ... there's this thread I started with the subject "what is ready for
fedora.redhat.com." I think we should use that thread to gain consensus
about what changes we think should take place on the two docs pages,
then file a bugzilla report detailing the changes. Would you like to
contribute your ideas to that thread, maybe even try out the bug
reporting?
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer
this .signature subject to random changes
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
19 years, 8 months
