docs May 2017

docs@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
21 discussions

[Bug 1198984] New: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198984 Bug ID: 1198984 Summary: firewalld: please improve documentation on using it on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS router Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: razvan.sandu(a)mobexpert.ro QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Hello, Description of problem: Even using the rich-language feature, it is still rather difficult to figure out how to use firewalld on a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS system that is used as a router (a "transparent" system). That's because: a. administrators will need *different* sets of rules/restrictions for access to the router itself and to the various services that run beyond the router (using or non using NAT). b. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their policies (ACCEPT or DROP) and when these policies apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. For example, an administrator needs an *easy* method to restrict VNC access *to* the router itself (INPUT), but may want free VNC access to some server located *behind* the router (FORWARD). In the second case, forwarding may (or may not) imply NAT, depending if he goes on the Internet via the external interface or simply goes in another LAN segment beyond the router. c. It is not very clear how/where the predefined firewalld zones implement their trafic rules ( *exceptions* to ACCEPT or DROP default policies) and when these rules apply to traffic bounded *to* the router system or to traffic that *traverses* the router. Additional info: Even it is not dynamic, the Shorewall application (http://shorewall.net/) acts as a higher-level language over iptables, offering the same concepts of "zones" for interfaces. Much of its conceptual architecture is directly applicable ("portable") to firewalld, if accepted by developers. Somewhat different from conceptual point of view, the "zones" are "levels of trust surrounding the router", including thr FW zone for the router itself. (unlike firewalld, the shorewall zones have no "sources" or "services" embedded in them). IPv4 and IPv6 zones are completely separated (they actually represent different levels of trust). Administrators may directly define policies, i.e. allow *default* actions to be done when an packet travels from a zone to another (ACCEPT, REJECT). The most sane policy between any two zones is REJECT (with further exceptions defined as rules, see below). Rules are *exceptions to policies* , explicitly defined (based on various criteria such as source IP, destination IP, ports, etc.) Rules may be expressed via predefined (or customised) "macros" (which are the direct equivalent of firewalld's "services"). IPv4 and IPv6 policy and rules are completely separated (IMHO that's good, since the use of global IPv6 addresses pose completely different security problems than NATted & externally firewalled IPv4). Best regards, Răzvan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 755744] New: typo in PV-Configuring_Additional_Devices
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: typo in PV-Configuring_Additional_Devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755744 Summary: typo in PV-Configuring_Additional_Devices Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: virtualization-guide AssignedTo: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shaiton(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org CC: kwade(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- >From the file available in transifex, Now you can configure the new network interfaces using <command>redhat-config-network</command> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux3 or <command>system-config-network</command> on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. that should be "on" Red Hat. I could have corrected that now that I have git access, but this git is still for F14… There were plenty of update about virt since F14, is it outdated? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_meetings#Guides -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

2 7

[Bug 1095977] New: RFE: static IP assignment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095977 Bug ID: 1095977 Summary: RFE: static IP assignment Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Static IP addresses are crucial for applications like DHCP servers or other infrastructure that can't rely on external assignment. They're also helpful for home users that want to predictably locate their Fedora installation. Explain the use case for this and some alternative methods, then the procedure for setting a setting a static IP using both ifcfg files and graphical methods. Each method could be explained in a separate article; ie "... on the command line" and "... with GNOME" and "... with KDE" and so on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1101798] New: RFE: Captive portal
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101798 Bug ID: 1101798 Summary: RFE: Captive portal Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Create a recipe for configuring a simple captive portal with Fedora that will require users to acknowledge a terms of use message before allowing connections to pass. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 1101796] New: RFE: NAT router
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101796 Bug ID: 1101796 Summary: RFE: NAT router Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Create a recipe for using Fedora as a NAT router using Firewalld and NetworkManager. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 3

[Bug 1096394] New: RFE: Thin Client (Tracking Bug)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096394 Bug ID: 1096394 Summary: RFE: Thin Client (Tracking Bug) Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora can be used as a server and client environment for a thin client deployment. Document the required procedures to do this. Because of the broad scope and number of procedures involved, this should be split up into recipes addressing component tasks. This bug will be used to track the overall progress; please block this bug with any new bugs created for the purpose. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1095945] New: RFE: disabling head parking on spinning drives
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095945 Bug ID: 1095945 Summary: RFE: disabling head parking on spinning drives Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Component: cookbook Assignee: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Some drives have aggressive APM, and the resulting frequent head parking can negatively impact access latency and produce an annoying clicking sound. Explain the theory, benefits, procedure, and risks of adjusting APM settings with hdparm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 693536] New: How to increase the number of configured loop devices
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: How to increase the number of configured loop devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693536 Summary: How to increase the number of configured loop devices Product: Fedora Documentation Version: devel Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: virtualization-guide AssignedTo: fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: apevec(a)redhat.com QAContact: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, kwade(a)redhat.com, oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Description of problem: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Virtualization_Guide/sec… Number of loop devices cannot be changed via modprobe.conf since loop is not a kernel module anymore: # grep DEV_LOOP /boot/config-2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

2 7

release notes in unicornland
by Matthew Miller 05 Jun '17

05 Jun '17

So, occasionally someone from a large software company where I happen to be employed comes and asks me things like "So, what's changed in Fedora since version 20"? We have the ChangeSet pages, and we have release notes (largely, I think, based on those, at least recently). But, Changes are usually only filed when we as Fedora decide to make a change on purpose, or when there is an upstream change which requires coordination to land. The vast majority of user-impacting change comes through from upstream without particular note. Some of these don't even come in at release time, or into Rawhide only for the next release — sometimes they come in as updates. It'd be nice to be able to refer users — and it's end-users, too, not just the company requests — to a more complete log of user-facing changes. (Things like: command lines moved around, new features, deprecated functionality, removed functionality, etc.) With our theretical new docs system, is there a way we can do this? I'd like something which would be really easy for packagers, and ideally be integrated with (or replace?) the RPM changelog and the Bodhi update text. Ideas? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

2 2

Docs "Meeting" on 22 May 2017
by Brian Exelbierd 05 Jun '17

05 Jun '17

Prompted by t3rm1n4l's email, we had a conversation about AsciiDoc, Conversion from DocBook, AsciiBinder and other fun things. Details are below. regards, bex Meeting ended Mon May 22 14:49:02 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . <zodbot> Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-05-22/fedora_docs.201… <zodbot> Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-05-22/fedora_docs.201… <zodbot> Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-05-22/fedora_docs.201…

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

docs May 2017