docs-qa January 2012

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
4 discussions

[Bug 769438] New: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within rpm-guide-programming-python.xml
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within rpm-guide-programming-python.xml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769438 Summary: [PATCH] Fix syntax of code examples within rpm-guide-programming-python.xml Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: rpm-guide AssignedTo: bcotton+fedora(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: dmalcolm(a)redhat.com QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Created attachment 548940 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=548940 Patch to Rpm Guide to fix rpm-guide-programming-python.xml Unfortunately the examples of Python code within the RPM guide have been thoroughly broken since the initial conversion to DocBook, due to the way Python treats leading whitespace as significant. I'm attaching a patch which overhauls this page, so that the code examples are syntactically valid. See the notes in the patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

2 5

[Bug 782916] New: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782916 Summary: value of security measures; no metric, no scope description Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: security-guide AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us ReportedBy: budden(a)nps.navy.mil QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pkennedy(a)redhat.com, eric(a)christensenplace.us, security-guide-list(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Description of problem: The juncture between computer security and network security is inadequate -- too many seams which leaves too many man-in-middle attack opportunities. The most egregious omission in this (otherwise pretty good) document is treatment of SCOPE. This probably belongs in the vicinity of 1.3. Analysis first. Map each of the security solutions you have in the guide onto the ISO Reference Model: Layer 1/2 security measures (like WiFi security) protect frames. The scope of the security is limited to a single segment. No security beyond the router and no security within end systems. Layer 3 security protected datagrams (VPNs do this, IPSec ....). The scope is an enclave tunneled through an internetwork. The protection cannot extend beyond the VPN boxes, so data is wholly unprotected within end systems (and LAN if the VPN box is associated with the last router). Layer 4/5 security includes SSL (aka TLS). You have a how-to for securing an http server (good) but no admonitions regarding scope -- the security extends from the TCP socket in one end system to the TCP socket at the other end of the connection -- again no security inside the OS comes from SSL. All of the above security measures protect infrastructure. But they do not protect the data. Layer 6/7 security measures protect the data. Here the scope _can be_ truly end to end. S/MIME is a good example (so is ssh and XML sign/crypt) where the data passes over the internet and through the OS in protected form. Only in a fairly small space is the data unprotected. In Evolution, for example, only the parts of the UA that deal with composing, reading, ... mail are places where the authenticity and confidentiality of the data is possible. Most of the rest of the UA (including all the filing system deals with data that has been protected exactly the way it's been sent over the network. In the case of Evolution (UAs differ in implementation) secured data is stored in the file system exactly the way it was transmitted. Recommendations: 1) include a mapping similar to above so users have an idea what the scope of this or that security measure is. 2) emphasize those security measures that apply to applications (layer 6/7) as Fedora distribution evolves and matures. (What got me here this morning is the continuing frustration getting Evolution to properly play ball with DoD CAC cards ... works, but doesn't 'just work'). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Security Guide 16.3 (doesn't have a date) How reproducible: The above analysis doesn't invent anything; it only organizes and sorts. Anyone can reproduce it. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 769137] New: F16 Planet CCRMA Documentation links to F13 Repo
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Jan '13

19 Jan '13

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: F16 Planet CCRMA Documentation links to F13 Repo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769137 Summary: F16 Planet CCRMA Documentation links to F13 Repo Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: unspecified Component: musicians-guide AssignedTo: crantila(a)acanac.net ReportedBy: bugs(a)notinachos.com QAContact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Description of problem: The Fedora 16 CC Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 16 Musician's Guide: Edition 1.0 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. visit http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html/Musicians_Guide/sect-Mus… 2. Observe the links point to the Fedora 13 repositories. Actual results: su -c 'rpm -Uvh http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/\ planetccrma/13/i386/planetccrma-repo-1.1-2.fc13.ccrma.noarch.rpm Expected results: su -c 'rpm -Uvh http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/\ planetccrma/16/i386/planetccrma-repo-1.1-3.fc16.ccrma.noarch.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 755241] Saving and restoring iptables rules documentation needs update for systemd
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Jan '12

15 Jan '12

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755241 --- Comment #3 from Paul <pnewell(a)cs.cmu.edu> 2012-01-15 22:32:52 EST --- I bumped into this while bring up a system under F16 (i686 Xfce). The best I could find online was to do "iptables-save > /etc/sysconfig/iptables" which works. Is the plan to allow systemd to understand what "service iptables save" used to do or to change the documentation to suggest the above workaround as the new way to do it ... or something else? Thanks, Paul -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa January 2012