[Bug 1706205] New: fedora 30 kde live image contains the squashfs
image from fedora 27 and its gnome
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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.
3 years, 11 months
[Bug 1694217] New: dnf man page does not discuss a dry run
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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.
4 years, 5 months
[Bug 1435506] first search result for "list of files in RPM package"
is the *Romanian* documentation
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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.
4 years, 7 months
[Bug 1435506] first search result for "list of files in RPM package"
is the *Romanian* documentation
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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...
) or if you must a separate docs-obsolete.fedoraproject.org.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 7 months