docs-qa November 2018

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
7 discussions

[Bug 1021605] New: No Default Syslog
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Nov '18

30 Nov '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021605 Bug ID: 1021605 Summary: No Default Syslog Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Keywords: Tracking Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: pbokoc(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: brentrbrian(a)gmail.com, johannbg(a)gmail.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com, kvolny(a)redhat.com, mattdm(a)redhat.com, pbokoc(a)redhat.com, yjcoshc(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co, zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl Depends On: 967521, 998573 Blocks: 1001355, 1001356 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998573 +++ This is a tracking bug for Change: No Default Syslog For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/NoDefaultSyslog No longer install a traditional syslog service by default. (Specifically, remove rsyslog from the @core or @standard groups in comps.) --- Additional comment from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek on 2013-10-08 15:22:54 EDT --- http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=2b8f6883a17b --- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:44:57 EDT --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 Accepted Changes 100% Completed Deadline is on 2013-10-15 [1]. All Accepted Changes has to be code complete and ready to be validated in the Beta release (optionally by Fedora QA). Required bug state at this point is ON_QA. As for several System Wide Changes, Beta Change Deadline is a point of contingency plan, all incomplete Changes will be reported to FESCo for 2013-10-16 meeting. In case of any questions, don't hesitate to ask Wrangler (jreznik). [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Schedule --- Additional comment from Matthew Miller on 2013-10-15 14:38:53 EDT --- The basic change to implement this went in, although quite a few packages still bring in rsyslogd as a dependency. I think this feature is fine as it is, and we'll detangle that as part of making separate, targeted Fedora products. --- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-16 06:56:42 EDT --- Ok, thanks, moving to ON_QA. --- Additional comment from Karel Volný on 2013-10-21 08:27:14 EDT --- just FTR, journal brings bug #967521 - how could we switch to this nonsense if that one is still unresolved? well, in fact, how could we even have this activated by default, maybe I'm just out of luck googling, but I see no approval for journal to be used? --- Additional comment from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson on 2013-10-21 08:59:21 EDT --- Just an FYI This feature is not as simple as no default syslog. We need to fix the entire syslog ( journal/rsyslog/syslog-ng ) implementation in the distribution, come up with virtual provide ( to sub package or not to sub package rsyslog/syslog-ng ) as well as fix roughly 600 packages. Now the proposal on how to do so has been stuck with FPC for 2 years now and until that has been done and fixed this feature can never be considered 100% complete... --- Additional comment from Matthew Miller on 2013-10-21 09:10:10 EDT --- (In reply to Jóhann B. Guðmundsson from comment #6) > Just an FYI This feature is not as simple as no default syslog. We need to > fix the entire syslog ( journal/rsyslog/syslog-ng ) implementation in the > distribution, come up with virtual provide ( to sub package or not to sub > package rsyslog/syslog-ng ) as well as fix roughly 600 packages. Now the > proposal on how to do so has been stuck with FPC for 2 years now and until > that has been done and fixed this feature can never be considered 100% > complete... I agree that that's the target, and also that it will continue to be slow-moving. This feature was intentionally meant to slice off and accomplish a small portion of that. --- Additional comment from Brent R Brian on 2013-10-21 09:42:27 EDT --- My comments are not intended to be a remedy, fix, enoursement of a fix/remedy or anything other than a "data point". If you guys need a "lab rat", let me know. B --- Additional comment from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson on 2013-10-21 11:10:22 EDT --- (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #7) > (In reply to Jóhann B. Guðmundsson from comment #6) > > Just an FYI This feature is not as simple as no default syslog. We need to > > fix the entire syslog ( journal/rsyslog/syslog-ng ) implementation in the > > distribution, come up with virtual provide ( to sub package or not to sub > > package rsyslog/syslog-ng ) as well as fix roughly 600 packages. Now the > > proposal on how to do so has been stuck with FPC for 2 years now and until > > that has been done and fixed this feature can never be considered 100% > > complete... > > I agree that that's the target, and also that it will continue to be > slow-moving. This feature was intentionally meant to slice off and > accomplish a small portion of that. That is one of the core problem people really as in that feature and related work are just implemented up to the point it serves the feature requester need ( and is labelled as 100% feature completed ) as opposed to the actual work required to implement properly into the distribution. What we need to do is to keep distribute wide changes as these in a separated branch and switch all the components at the same time when the feature actually is 100% feature complete Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967521 [Bug 967521] /var/log/journal breaks system startup https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998573 [Bug 998573] No Default Syslog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001355 [Bug 1001355] No Default Syslog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001356 [Bug 1001356] No Default Syslog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 5

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 7 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again in another 7 days if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 7 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1518 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Bug 1652997] New: Recommended Partitioning Scheme suggests far too small root partition
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 23 Nov '18

23 Nov '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652997 Bug ID: 1652997 Summary: Recommended Partitioning Scheme suggests far too small root partition Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: jwakely(a)redhat.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f29/install-guide/install/Insta… suggests 10gb for the / partition, this seems far too small for a modern Fedora system. > For a minimal installation, a 5 GB root partition will be sufficient. However, for most common installations which include extra packages and a graphical user interface, the root partition should be at least 10 GB; with 20 GB being sufficient for most common use cases. On one of my F27 machines my root partition is 40gb and 80% full. On a second F27 machine with a separate /var partition I have a 20gb root partition, which is 70% full, and another 25-40gb used in the /var partition. Neither of those would fit in 20gb, let alone 10gb. (I use these machines for development and package maintenance, but all sources and builds are done in /home and /var/lib/mock which are separate partitions, so I don't think my large root partitions are especially atypical.) Should the recommendation be updated to something more realistic? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 19 Nov '18

19 Nov '18

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 7 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again in another 7 days if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 7 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1511 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 12 Nov '18

12 Nov '18

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 7 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again in another 7 days if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 7 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1504 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 7 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again in another 7 days if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 7 days for your response. review ------ Bug 1124344: yum --security update doesn't work on non-fedora repos. This limitation is probably undocumented. (1497 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=942713&action=edit To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue&requestee=docs-qa%40li…

1 0

[Bug 1175759] New: Checksum validation in PowerShell is wrong
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175759 Bug ID: 1175759 Summary: Checksum validation in PowerShell is wrong Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: install-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: gliverma(a)westga.edu QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Description of problem: I tried to use the info at http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/sect-… and found that the commands did not work due to missing quotes and case sensitivity. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 21 How reproducible: Every time for me. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download ISO 2. Download checksum file 3. Use code on http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/sect-… Actual results: PS D:\Downloads> $image = "Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-21-5.iso" PS D:\Downloads> $checksum_file = "Fedora-Workstation-21-x86_64-CHECKSUM.md5" PS D:\Downloads> $sha256 = New-Object -TypeName System.Security.Cryptography.sha256CryptoSer viceProvider PS D:\Downloads> $exepected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0] PS D:\Downloads> $download_checksum = [System.BitConverter]::ToString($sha256.ComputeHash([S ystem.IO.File]::ReadAllBytes($PWD\$image))) At line:1 char:109 + ... adAllBytes($PWD\$image))) + ~ Missing ')' in method call. At line:1 char:109 + ... adAllBytes($PWD\$image))) + ~~~~~~~ Unexpected token '\$image' in expression or statement. At line:1 char:116 + ... tes($PWD\$image))) + ~ Unexpected token ')' in expression or statement. At line:1 char:117 + ... es($PWD\$image))) + ~ Unexpected token ')' in expression or statement. At line:1 char:118 + ... s($PWD\$image))) + ~ Unexpected token ')' in expression or statement. + CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : MissingEndParenthesisInMethodCall Expected results: No errors in console Additional info: I fixed the code and made the output more readable. Below is what I think should be posted on that page of the docs: $image = "Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-21-5.iso" $checksum_file = "Fedora-Workstation-21-x86_64-CHECKSUM" $sha256 = New-Object -TypeName System.Security.Cryptography.sha256CryptoServiceProvider $expected_checksum = ((Get-Content $checksum_file | Select-String -Pattern $image) -split " ")[0].ToLower() $download_checksum = [System.BitConverter]::ToString($sha256.ComputeHash([System.IO.File]::ReadAllBytes("$PWD\$image"))).ToLower() -replace '-', '' if ( "$download_checksum" -eq "$expected_checksum" ) { echo "Checksum test passed!" } else { echo "Checksum test failed." } echo "Download Checksum: $download_checksum" echo "Expected Checksum: $expected_checksum" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

docs-qa November 2018