docs-qa July 2021

docs-qa@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
4 discussions

[Bug 1952656] New: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes.
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 07 Jul '22

07 Jul '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952656 Bug ID: 1952656 Summary: F33+ "DNF System Upgrade" needs changes. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: install-guide Severity: medium Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: mattison.computer(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: pbokoc(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The F33 (and newer) "DNF System Upgrade" instructions document has a couple of minor issues, and one more serious problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-33, and probably newer. How reproducible: not applicable. Steps to Reproduce: 1. not applicable. 2. not applicable. 3. not applicable. Actual results: not applicable. Expected results: not applicable. Additional info: I. The "Clean-Up Old Packages" Section (2 minor issues). In the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section, the instructions first say to do "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied", and then to do "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates". After that, there is a "NOTE" box saying to first do "sudo dnf update". After the "NOTE" box, the instructions say to do "sudo dnf list extras", and so on. A. Assuming that the "NOTE" box is saying to do the "sudo dnf update" before doing the "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied" and the "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates", the box should be moved to between * the "Clean-Up Old Packages" section title, and * the instruction to do "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied". So it should be: 1. The section title "Clean_Up Old Packages"; 2. The "NOTE" box for sudo dnf update"; 3. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied"; 4. instruction to run "sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates"; and 5. instructions to run "sudo dnf list extras", and so on. B. According to the dnf man page, the "update" command is deprecated. It is now "upgrade". So the dnf command in the "NOTE" box discussed above should be "sudo dnf upgrade", not "sudo dnf update". II. The "Clean-Up Old Symlinks" Section (more serious problem). In the Fedora users list, in the thread "invisible application after upgrade", one member said that the "sudo symlinks -r -d /usr" step isn't necessarily a good idea. He provided an example. There was a little more discussion in the Fedora users list thread "dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade").". This section needs to be either redone or deleted. I do not have the expertise to be more specific. I am a home user with no training as a sys.admin. I have a stand-alone home work station. I do my own systems administration. So I rely on the Fedora "DNF System Upgrade" document to guide me through semi-annual upgrades. I ask that this section be researched and either improved or deleted as appropriate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1957968] New: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 07 Jun '22

07 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957968 Bug ID: 1957968 Summary: WIFI connection with WPS-PBC not working Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: wireless-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: hk(a)hsyn.de QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: sradvan(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: WiFi Connection can't be established with the Fedora 34 via WPS-PBC. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): OS: Fedora 34 live USB stick. Rooter: Fritz!Box 7590 v7.27 Notebook: ThinkPad w520 How reproducible: Start Fedora 34 from USB stick. Try to connect to a WPA&WPA2 Secured WiFi. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Connection can't established. Expected results: Authentication without manual key enter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 1979552] New: Typo in python api example
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 06 Jul '21

06 Jul '21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979552 Bug ID: 1979552 Summary: Typo in python api example Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Status: NEW Component: rpm-guide Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com Reporter: laurence.rochfort(a)oracle.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: bcotton(a)redhat.com, pkovar(a)redhat.com, zach(a)oglesby.co Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: There is a typo in the code example in the following section: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html-si… The example states: To turn off all checks, you can pass –1 to setVSFlags: ts.setVSFlasgs(-1) The example code should be: ts.setVSFlags(-1) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1010477] Using own certificates/keys with SecureBoot isn't documented enough
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 02 Jul '21

02 Jul '21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010477 --- Comment #5 from Marek Suchánek <msuchane(a)redhat.com> --- We are now working on this documentation for RHEL. The plan is to publish it with the RHEL 8.5 release. See the cloned RHEL bug: BZ#1912408 -- 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 July 2021