docs-qa September 2019

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
5 discussions

[Bug 1706205] New: fedora 30 kde live image contains the squashfs image from fedora 27 and its gnome
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 26 May '20

26 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706205 Bug ID: 1706205 Summary: fedora 30 kde live image contains the squashfs image from fedora 27 and its gnome Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: about-fedora Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: rob.verduijn(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: When booting the recovery option you get the squashfs image from the image found in the LiveOS folder This is a gnome image (a bit strange on a kde live image) And it is from fedora27 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora 30 kde live image iso How reproducible: boot the recovery option from that iso and you will see Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: gnome squashfs image from fedora27 Expected results: kde squashfs image from fedora30 Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1694217] New: dnf man page does not discuss a dry run
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 08 Nov '19

08 Nov '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694217 Bug ID: 1694217 Summary: dnf man page does not discuss a dry run Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: docs-requests Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: noloader(a)gmail.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora I'm trying to figure out how to test a 'dnf remove'. I tried 'dnf remove --dry-run' but dnf retirned "dnf remove: error: unrecognized arguments: --dry-run". The man page does not discuss how to perform a dry run. Please add a treatment for performing a dry run. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1435506] first search result for "list of files in RPM package" is the *Romanian* documentation
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Sep '19

27 Sep '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435506 Petr Bokoc <pbokoc(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pbokoc(a)redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Petr Bokoc <pbokoc(a)redhat.com> --- Hello, Yes, I see similar results in Google, "list+of+files+in+RPM+package" is in 5th place in a private window, not first, but it's still the top hit for docs.fp.o. We've had this kind of problem before, although this is the first time I see Google prioritizing Romanian over English, previous reports were only about landing at outdated but still English docs. This is kind of a long running problem with no easy solutions besides just removing old docs altogether. Good point with the Internet Archive; I actually never thought of that. Docs for Fedora up to version 26 were built using an old system which is unmaintained, and the way it worked actually prevents us from making *any* updates other than running a script to insert something into each page. Basically we can't rebuild the site, we can only edit the built sources; the reasons for that are complicated. I do think we might be able to fix the headers, though, and I think we should try to find a way to insert a big red banner into each page saying "this is really outdated, go to docs.fp.o". I don't think noting the version in the page title would be enough because neither mobile Firefox nor Chrome display the page title as you browse, only in the tab list... Anyway, for 27 and later, on our new system, we have more control over the content and we could probably handle this properly with a separate UI layout for EOLed versions that has a similar banner. The problem is that the person who does the most work on the site and who could fix this the easiest is only rarely available to take on a bigger task like this one, so it's stalled. I'll talk to him and see if we can get this done in some reasonable timeframe. I absolutely agree that it's a problem. Oh and the open issues are here: * https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/docs-fp-o/issue/118 (for pre-27 docs) * https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/docs-fp-o/issue/116 (27 and later) I linked your bug report in the pre-27 one and I'll close this if you don't mind, we're using Pagure issues nowadays. (Closing down the whole Fedora Docs product category here in Bugzilla is also something I should get around to soon...) Cheers, Petr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1435506] first search result for "list of files in RPM package" is the *Romanian* documentation
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 25 Sep '19

25 Sep '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435506 --- Comment #2 from skierpage <info(a)skierpage.com> --- (In reply to Paul W. Frields from comment #1) > Petr, is this still an issue on the latest docs.fp.o site? Still true for me in a Firefox private window. For the second search the Fedora 16 URL is down to the third result, the second result is now "Removing Packages - Fedora Documentation" for Fedora 23, which reached EOL in 2016. It looks exactly the same as the Fedora 16 result, both have the green breadcrumb https://docs.fedoraproject.org › en-US › Fedora › html › sec-Removing What's sad is when you follow these old URLs, the left-hand nav only offers up to Fedora 26. There's no obvious way to find documentation for current supported Fedora. So here are more suggestions: * Change the <title> to "xyz - Fedora 23 Documentation" or "xyz - Fedora 30 Docs Site" instead of making users scan the URL (which is hard on a phone). * Maybe there's some way to include the version in the green breadcrumb that Google shows. * Nuke the entire Fedora Documentation tree that only has versions up to 26! If there's any value at all to this old documentation you can point users to the Internet Archive's Wayback machine ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160515102459/https://docs.fedoraproject.org/e… ) or if you must a separate docs-obsolete.fedoraproject.org. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1435506] first search result for "list of files in RPM package" is the *Romanian* documentation
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 25 Sep '19

25 Sep '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435506 Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pbokoc(a)redhat.com Assignee|stickster(a)gmail.com |pbokoc(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(pbokoc(a)redhat.com | |) --- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> --- Petr, is this still an issue on the latest docs.fp.o site? -- 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 September 2019