[Bug 1021138] New: Sugar 0.100 (1.0)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021138
Bug ID: 1021138
Summary: Sugar 0.100 (1.0)
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: jreznik(a)redhat.com, pbrobinson(a)gmail.com,
relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998549
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998549 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: Sugar 0.100 (1.0)
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/Sugar-0.100
Update Sugar to the new upstream 0.100 (1.0) release.
--- Additional comment from Peter Robinson on 2013-08-23 05:48:46 EDT ---
Feature is substantially complete. We're still awaiting the upstream final
0.100 (or 1.0) release but it's all working in Fedora on the current latest
release
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:46:17 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
---------------------
Tracking bug for documenting this Change in the Release Notes.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998549
[Bug 998549] Sugar 0.100 (1.0)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[Bug 1021137] New: typo? "acpi_rspd" should probably be "acpi_rsdp"
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021137
Bug ID: 1021137
Summary: typo? "acpi_rspd" should probably be "acpi_rsdp"
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: uefi-secure-boot-guide
Assignee: sparks(a)redhat.com
Reporter: hugh(a)mimosa.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: sparks(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
"acpi_rspd" should probably be "acpi_rsdp"
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Revision 18.4 Tue 11 March 2013 Eric Christensen
<http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/UEFI_Secure_Boo...>
Additional info:
In section 1.5.1 there is a bullet point:
the acpi_rspd command line option, which is used to specify custom ACPI data
When I google for acpi_rspd, it suggests that I probably meant acpi_rsdp. If I
insist, all the hits seem to be derived from the UEFI-secure-boot-guide (some
are amusing).
So I conclude that this spelling is a typo.
OT: is there a reason that this document is filed under Fedora 18 (I'm using
Fedora 19)?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 4 months
[Bug 1008194] New: Enlightenment
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008194
Bug ID: 1008194
Summary: Enlightenment
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: jreznik(a)redhat.com, metherid(a)gmail.com,
relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net,
zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 954132 (Enlightenment-Tracker), 998517
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998517 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: Enlightenment
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/Enlightenment
Enlightenment 0.17 a new stable release has been released after 12 years or so
of development. As many desktops are being landed on Fedora, Integrating
Enlightenment in Fedora can not only enlarge the number of available desktops
in Fedora, but also improve user experiences and give users another choice of
Desktop Environment.
------------------------
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-July/001210...
Please document this Change in the Release Notes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months
[Bug 1021178] New: The instructions for burning an ISO to disk only cover Gnome
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021178
Bug ID: 1021178
Summary: The instructions for burning an ISO to disk only cover
Gnome
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: readme-burning-isos
Severity: low
Assignee: zach(a)oglesby.co
Reporter: joe(a)zeff.us
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Description of problem:
The instructions for burning an ISO under Linux only cover Gnome. There should
at least be some information on how this is done under KDE, Xfce and LDXE.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
100$
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Use a DE other than Gnome
2.Look for information here on burning an ISO
Actual results:
Nothing
Expected results:
Somewhat more comprehensive coverage
Additional info:
Yes, I understand that Fedora is Gnome-centric, but there should, at the very
least, be an attempt to cover the other most popular DEs. As far as the more
obscure selections go, it's probably safe to say that if you know enough to
install it and get it working properly, you probably know enough not to need
help from this page.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months
[Bug 1021151] New: X2Go
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021151
Bug ID: 1021151
Summary: X2Go
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: cickumqt(a)gmail.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
orion(a)cora.nwra.com, relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org,
wb8rcr(a)arrl.net, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998551, 969209, 969212, 969220, 990815, 990817,
991286, 991292, 1004094
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998551 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: X2Go
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/X2Go
The X2Go project has taken over development of the old NX libraries and has
developed new clients and server code around it. We will move to use the X2Go
NX library in Fedora and include the full X2Go suite.
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-08-22 11:20:42 EDT ---
Review of main nx-libs component is stalled.
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-08-31 00:11:58 EDT ---
We seem to be making progress again. Current issues:
- nx-libs should be approved soon
- x2goclient is blocking on a bundled library exception -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/343
- remmina-plugins-nx and qtnx will need to require nxproxy
- freenx-server will need to require nxagent
As a proven packager I can make the above two changes once nx-libs is imported.
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:44:45 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 Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-14 10:28:01 EDT ---
Orion, I can see all tracker bugs closed. Does this mean this Change is
completed now and could be moved to ON_QA?
--- Additional comment from Orion Poplawski on 2013-10-14 15:05:26 EDT ---
yes, I think so.
=============================
Tracking bug for inclusion in Release Notes
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969209
[Bug 969209] Review Request: nx-libs - NX X11 protocol compression
libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969212
[Bug 969212] Review Request: x2goclient - Graphical client for use with the
X2Go network based computing environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969220
[Bug 969220] Review Request: x2goserver - Server for use with the X2Go
network based computing environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990815
[Bug 990815] Review Request: x2godesktopsharing - Share X2go desktops with
other users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990817
[Bug 990817] Review Request: python-x2go - Python module providing X2Go
client API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991286
[Bug 991286] Review Request: pyhoca-gui - Graphical X2Go client written in
(wx)Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991292
[Bug 991292] Review Request: pyhoca-cli - Command line X2Go client written
in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998551
[Bug 998551] X2Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004094
[Bug 1004094] Review Request: cups-x2go - CUPS backend for printing from
X2Go
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months
[Bug 1008196] New: GLIBC 2.18
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008196
Bug ID: 1008196
Summary: GLIBC 2.18
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: codonell(a)redhat.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 999952
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #999952 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: GLIBC 2.18
For more details, see: http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/GLIBC218
Switch GLIBC in Fedora 20 to GLIBC version 2.18
--------------------------------------------------------
Discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184937.html
Please assess existing documentation for the impact of this Change.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months
[Bug 1021133] New: docs-check: Shared Certificate Tools
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021133
Bug ID: 1021133
Summary: docs-check: Shared Certificate Tools
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: docs-requests
Keywords: Tracking
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: herrold(a)owlriver.com, jreznik(a)redhat.com,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stefw(a)redhat.com, stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Depends On: 998546
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #998546 +++
This is a tracking bug for Change: Shared Certificate Tools
For more details, see:
http://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/SharedCertificateTools
Fedora now has infrastructure for sharing system trusted certificates between
the various crypto libraries.
--- Additional comment from Stef Walter on 2013-08-29 08:32:51 EDT ---
Substantiably testable using p11-kit-0.19.4 which is in Fedora 20.
--- Additional comment from Jaroslav Reznik on 2013-10-11 04:46:13 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
===========================
Docs Task: Identify documentation that is impacted by this change and open bugs
as required.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998546
[Bug 998546] Shared Certificate Tools
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months
[Bug 987710] New: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987710
Bug ID: 987710
Summary: section "Guest CPU models" needs updating
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: virtualization-deployment-and-administrative-guide
Assignee: lnovich(a)redhat.com
Reporter: me(a)petetravis.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: lnovich(a)redhat.com
The section "Guest CPU models" should be updated, comments below:
Background:
- http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/CPUModels has the QEMU roadmap for relevant
features
- rawhide/F20 is currently shipping qemu-1.5.1
- F19 is currently shipping qemu-1.4.2
- F18 is currently shipping qemu-1.2.2
- Fedora ships qemu-kvm as /usr/bin/qemu-kvm not /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm
The first part of the section states CPU configurations are defined in XML
files rather than hardcoded; per the roadmap, they are again hardcoded to allow
compatibility code and more unified processor definitions. There's no
indication of backwards compatibility from qemu, although virsh and friends may
still accept .conf definitions and Know What To Do when talking to qemu.
In F18 and F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?cpuid` and `qemu-kvm -cpu ?dump` do not
function.
In F18, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a terse list of definitions.
in F19, `qemu-kvm -cpu ?` gives a more descriptive list, and also includes a
comprehensive list of recognized CPU flags. This could possibly replace
`?cpuid`
In both, `qemu-kvm -cpu <name>,enforce` functions as expected; this content is
commented out.
Looking further into comparing guest CPU features, I find `virsh capabilities`
will generate xml representing the host. It also appears to represent other
architectures that the host could emulate - if the appropriate packages (ie
qemu-arm ) are installed, and I correctly understand what they do.
There's also `virsh cpu-baseline` to generate a cpu definition that would allow
migration between file-defined hosts, and `virsh cpu-compare` to compare a
defined host with the local host. Both of these rely on [deprecated] xml .conf
cpu definition files. I haven't been able to find a more elegant way to compare
cpu configurations than scripting together the above virsh commands, presuming
`virsh capabilities` works the way I suspect.
The qemu roadmap cites `-cpu best` as a way to get the best CPU definition when
creating a guest - but it doesn't work here, and I'm not sure how it would make
a determination if it did.
A lot of the information I've discovered deals directly with qemu, not libvirt.
With qemu moving back to hard coded cpu definitions, I think it would be good
to get some insight on if libvirt tools are affected and how they are handling
the change. In general, I think it would be better to present libvirt commands
rather than commands executing qemu directly.
I'm not submitting a patch for this one because I'm not sure where to go with
it. It *seems* like libvirt should have a simple way to compare the
capabilities of heterogeneous hosts and aid in creating the best definitions
for guests.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
10 years, 5 months