docs October 2010

docs@lists.fedoraproject.org

41 participants
86 discussions

[Bug 627417] New: docs.fp.o landing page needs 'Start here' note!
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: docs.fp.o landing page needs 'Start here' note! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627417 Summary: docs.fp.o landing page needs 'Start here' note! Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: docs-requests AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us ReportedBy: nathan.thomas(a)peacenik.co.uk QAContact: fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, kwade(a)redhat.com, nb(a)fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Description of problem: We have a large variety of documentation guides serving a wide range of different users. It may be difficult for users arriving at docs.fp.o to know where to start, especially if they are new to Fedora/Linux and are unfamiliar with some of the technical terms. A note on the landing page suggesting a sensible starting point for new users could help alleviate this problem. Eg: "New to Fedora? You can try Fedora on your PC without touching your existing installation by following the Live Image Guide." The end of the Live Image guide helpfully points users to the Installation guide if they want to install :) -- 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 11

[Bug 450331] New: lack of documentation on restoring from bare-metal (UUID problem)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450331 Summary: lack of documentation on restoring from bare-metal (UUID problem) Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: docs-requests AssignedTo: kwade(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: czar(a)acm.org QAContact: stickster(a)gmail.com CC: fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com Description of problem: ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449299 There is a lack of documentation on restoring a system from bare metal. I have found (see reference) that restore the root ("/") is not as simple as as just executing the restore command when running in rescue mode. With the current emphasis being place on use of UUIDs in both Fedora and RHEL, the whole business of UUIDs need to be better documented. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 14

[Bug 595695] New: Direct links to RNs broken.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '12

31 Aug '12

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Direct links to RNs broken. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595695 Summary: Direct links to RNs broken. Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: docs-requests AssignedTo: eric(a)christensenplace.us ReportedBy: eric(a)christensenplace.us QAContact: fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, kwade(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: * Previously, the release notes were located at http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ * Their location has changed to release specific URLs. * A link to the release notes is provided in fedora-bookmarks. * fedora-bookmarks are imported by the browser only on *first launch* so as to not overwrite user modifications. The new bookmarks layout causes two problems: 1. Nobody filed a fedora-bookmarks bug so Fedora 13 (and anyone on F-11 or F-12 etc) will default to going to http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ which is a 404. Since the bookmarks can only be imported on first launch, we cannot push an update to fix this if the user has launched the browser (which is extremely likely). 2. Even if I were to fix the bookmarks page to point directly to a specific release version (which again would take effect only if someone would yum update before launching Firefox), then if anyone updated to F-14, the bookmark would not change and would still point to e.g. F-13. So, I do not think that we should put version specific information into our bookmarks URLs. To solve both of the above problems, I believe we should try to do some User-Agent detection and redirection. Fedora browsers have an RPM NVR attached to them. For example: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100517 Fedora/3.6.4-1.fc13 Firefox/3.6.4 This tells us that the user's installed language is es-ES and it's a Fedora browser, specifically running F-13. We should then redirect queries to http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ to http://docs.fedoraproject.org/es-ES/Fedora/13/html/Release_Notes/index.html If we cannot figure any information out about the Fedora release or language (or there are no relnotes in that language), I propose the default redirect should be to the en-US version of the latest Fedora release notes. -- 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 11

[Bug 504066] New: CMS for docs.fp.org
by Red Hat Bugzilla 26 Jun '11

26 Jun '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: CMS for docs.fp.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504066 Summary: CMS for docs.fp.org Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: project-tracking AssignedTo: kwade(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: mel(a)redhat.com QAContact: kwade(a)redhat.com CC: fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Zikula chosen, working on test instances and project plan with Zikula team -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 57

[Bug 513907] New: SRPMs fail to build in Koji
by Red Hat Bugzilla 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: SRPMs fail to build in Koji https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513907 Summary: SRPMs fail to build in Koji Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: urgent Priority: high Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: eric(a)christensenplace.us QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jfearn(a)redhat.com, fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com, mmcallis(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: SRPMs fail to build in Koji due to the following error: Processing files: fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-16.fc12.noarch error: Two files on one line: /usr/share/applications/Fedora error: File must begin with "/": Projectfedora-security-guide-en-US.desktop Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.44-0.fc11 Possible Fix: Remove the %{?vendoropt} from desktop-file-install %{?vendoropt} --dir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications %{name}.desktop or remove %{vendor} all together. I'll be testing this soon to see if I can provide a patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 23

Release Notes Error (Systemd).
by Christopher Antila 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

Hello: I was reading the Release Notes (for fun - to see what's in this release... there are some very exciting things!), when I realized that there is still documentation for Systemd. My memory and this systemd "Features" page[1] both indicate that this is being postponed to Fedora 15, so should not be included with these release notes. Christopher. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd

3 2

Need more time
by Mario Santagiuliana 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Hi, I'm Mario Santagiuliana, I'm a translator of Italian team. We have got some translated document but this document need review. I would like to ask: a) don't public documents that are not checked; b) give us time to review this document and than public them. Thank you very much. -- Mario Santagiuliana www.marionline.it

2 1

Docs - so many question marks
by Adam Pribyl 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

I do see a lot of white quiestion marks on a black quarry background on the http://docs.fedoraproject.org/cs-CZ/index.html on the left side, where some content used to bee. Am I the only one? Thanks Adam Pribyl

4 4

Re: Docs - so many question marks
by Susan Lauber 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

I was seeing it on english. Some langs I looked also had the ???? But some had translated strings. I looked at both f13 and 14 docs. I was using and updated f13 with firefox and some plugins. I'm on phone now so cannot look. Susan On Oct 31, 2010 5:32 PM, "Eric "Sparks" Christensen" < sparks(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 16:43, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16... Which makes me wonder why I'm not seeing it. --Eric -- docs mailing list docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/...

1 0

Fwd: Installation misspelled as "insatallation"
by Sijis Aviles 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: davidk(a)davidaklein.com <davidk(a)davidaklein.com> Date: Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:02 PM Subject: Installation misspelled as "insatallation" To: webmaster(a)fedoraproject.org Installation is misspelled as "insatallation" on http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Installation_Guide/s1-gu… . I thought you'd want to know. DAK -- Docs team, We got this a little while ago and i don't know who is responsible for it, so I'm sending it to the list. Sijis

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

docs October 2010