PXE Secure Boot configuration - which guide?
by Jack Reed
Hi everyone,
Through my work on the Installation Guide I've come across the issue of
Secure Boot for UEFI systems through a bug that Neil Horman has been
helping me with [1] regarding PXE boot configuration on UEFI for IPv6
systems, plus IPv4 and IPv6 systems to enable Secure Boot.
In Comment 4, he suggests that perhaps the non-Secure Boot points could
be documented in the Installation Guide, either in or adjacent to the
current section on PXE boot configuration [2], while the Secure Boot
points could go in the UEFI Secure Boot Guide, which I see is in draft
form for F18 [3].
Based on the bug and your knowledge of Secure Boot, what do people think
about where this information should go? If it went into the Secure Boot
Guide, the Installation Guide could just direct users there. But perhaps
it's crucial enough that it should be duplicated.
And, of course, what is the status of the UEFI Secure Boot Guide? Will
it be released for F18?
I'd be glad of any thoughts on this, particularly from Sparks, Kevin, or
Josh. That said, I'm putting this out there now for people to chew on,
but with the holidays approaching we needn't worry about this until
January. I'll check in then and perhaps we can decide how to proceed.
Thanks, and happy holidays!
Jack
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871565
[2]
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/17/html/Installation_Guide/s1-...
[3]
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html-s...
--
Jack Reed
Content Author
Engineering Content Services
Red Hat Asia Pacific
Brisbane, Australia
Phone: +617 3514 8184
11 years, 3 months
Fedora Docs Meeting Reminder
by Ben Cotton
This is an automated message to remind you that we will be meeting at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting. Unless we've previously agreed that we will not be meeting today.
11 years, 3 months
Fedora Docs Meeting Reminder
by Ben Cotton
This is an automated message to remind you that we will be meeting at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting. Unless we've previously agreed that we will not be meeting today.
11 years, 4 months
Docs meeting summary -- 17 December 2012
by Ben Cotton
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (bcotton, 14:00:57)
* Participants are reminded to make liberal use of #info #link #help
in order to make the minutes "more better" (bcotton, 14:06:19)
* Follow up on last week's action items (bcotton, 14:06:34)
* ACTION: randomuser to remove Liberation fonts from Release Notes
(bcotton, 14:10:34)
* Release Notes (bcotton, 14:12:00)
* Commits have been made into the F18 branch of the RN (the workflow
for RN is that all edits are made in master) (bcotton, 14:22:41)
* ACTION: claneys to attempt a git merge (bcotton, 14:22:55)
* ACTION: jjmcd to update the install directory for the Release Notes
(bcotton, 14:25:59)
* Schedule and Guides (bcotton, 14:43:34)
* LINK:
http://jreznik.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-18/f-18-docs-tasks.html
(bcotton, 14:43:47)
* GA announcement due 18 December (bcotton, 14:44:30)
* Guide String Freeze deadline has passed (bcotton, 14:44:42)
* GA release is 8 January (bcotton, 14:44:57)
* Outstanding BZ tickets (bcotton, 14:48:28)
* LINK: http://tinyurl.com/lbrq84 (bcotton, 14:48:33)
* Open Floor discussion (bcotton, 14:49:44)
* ACTION: bcotton to add FUDCon NA to the meeting agenda (bcotton,
14:54:19)
* ACTION: bcotton to add /usr/share/help to meeting agenda for pkovar
(bcotton, 14:56:12)
Meeting ended at 14:57:13 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* randomuser to remove Liberation fonts from Release Notes
* claneys to attempt a git merge
* jjmcd to update the install directory for the Release Notes
* bcotton to add FUDCon NA to the meeting agenda
* bcotton to add /usr/share/help to meeting agenda for pkovar
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* bcotton
* bcotton to add FUDCon NA to the meeting agenda
* bcotton to add /usr/share/help to meeting agenda for pkovar
* claneys
* claneys to attempt a git merge
* jjmcd
* jjmcd to update the install directory for the Release Notes
* pkovar
* bcotton to add /usr/share/help to meeting agenda for pkovar
* randomuser
* randomuser to remove Liberation fonts from Release Notes
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* bcotton (41)
* jjmcd (38)
* pkovar (31)
* zoglesby (19)
* randomuser (12)
* claneys (5)
* zodbot (4)
* lnovich (4)
* Capesteve (1)
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-12-17/fedora_docs.20...
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-12-17/fedora_docs.20...
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-12-17/fedora_docs.20...
--
Ben Cotton
Fedora Docs Leader
11 years, 4 months
Fedora Docs Meeting Reminder
by Ben Cotton
This is an automated message to remind you that we will be meeting at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting. Unless we've previously agreed that we will not be meeting today.
11 years, 4 months
Re: Removing Publican and fop from EPEL5
by Eric Christensen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:38:43PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Quoting Eric H. Christensen (2012-12-10 22:51:11)
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > The last week or so has seen a couple of patches going into fop in the Fedora repositories. I recently became a co-maintainer of fop in EPEL5 and was trying to bring fop into current there. Unfortunately there are many dependency failures there that it's going to be a lot of work to bring it up to where we need it. The actual need, from my point of view, is to get Publican working properly. fop provides the engine for creating PDFs in Publican and is a necessary function for the Fedora Docs project. That said, the current version of Publican in EPEL5 is very old and outdated. Near current version of Publican is already in EPEL6 and I believe fop is in RHEL6 repositories.
> >
> > I say all that to ask this: Is anyone currently using fop or Publican in EPEL5 or can we get rid of those bits?
> >
> > I have no problem working to bring fop upto speed in EPEL5 if someone needs it but I'd hate to do all the work if no one is using it.
>
> Regardless of fop being out of date in EPEL I believe EPEL guidelines[1] strongly
> discourage big updates from flowing in. Quoting:
>
> The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar
> ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have
> a mostly stable set of packages that normally to not change at all and only
> changes if there are good reasons for it -- so no "hey, there is a new
> version, it builds, let's ship it" mentality.
>
> So I'd say: don't rebase fop at all. It's against the guidelines in the first
> place
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Package_maintena...
This is a good point. Unfortunately this would lead to the only option being to remove fop and Publican from EPEL5 because fop is broken... badly.
If no one needs it then I'll just retire it.
- -- Eric
- --------------------------------------------------
Eric H Christensen eric(a)christensenplace.us
"Sparks" sparks(a)fedoraproject.org
.... . .-.. .-.. --- .-- --- .-. .-.. -..
097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
- --------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQx7x3AAoJEIB2q94CS7PRliwP/R2QlTmPN6fsojY8YzQyNodx
k6k7SfrgJNpf7aguZEcFZ8aPsXGum7Y3b+9nkt5NdpUoI7VkWfbYMt3oDbOYInu/
R6YKt/REBZMkqjUczhFQxN85IcrurpbGhQ+4g0owFGbQ3R6o+VDJwdCX8J2m/G/P
gXZ2GTYUNY5y4tFsSSxeudbR7SMVq5QJPq2P5gh5rUrbn/LubK9QlwRvfKx2vVkI
nv/dXR3TCnUOshm08CoRqYOCzWsrABDLvj41NnEhPNkwFFHGu9CX3G3pfj5/0/4/
aXh2d3Le/nG1D2Eu+arZEiPs/6LaqrWwo2cQdeyp1ZUAB7QoJ16I3E3jV4bocnHg
PgSczQD2jzOhwKTq0PxYSBjXbAdBDKukOHLGnvJP6PcakIcDAEH3Qe39lhArkx7I
bwAvY2vtBiD7CRob3uuNVTMXsYdkIC7GEMDRKdykshDoq4DbR9J73O87asMkO3BQ
fCMXADYoZGXXPUzpXWDgnklis/khcfhPMNKh7BF7oKTuWAs6L8RVZW1Zn544SPi2
cw17bPHcLfLUuoEK2Q65NNNHiSzeO3nioEbv3uBh4+Ms/HGxNp/6JesH8llUnxVv
PHASZorsFhJ3HgTVdxTkPQtT8OcsxmjvMnkBuVg7LbHwsokBr98rAtduWiJqZuQj
ZnIBGpAHpWgoJctgGBIq
=TMQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 years, 4 months
Talking Points
by Jaroslav Reznik
Hi,
as I mentioned it today on docs meeting - there was agreement
with marketing, that docs team is going to write the announcement
and it will be polished/"marketized" by marketing team. But we
still have Talking Points - current SOP says, marketing team is
owner [1].
As it's going to be heavily based on the RN and the announcement
(or vice versa), it would make sense to be written by docs team
too. Are you, as a team, ok with it?
>From Ambassador POV it's a nice idea to have a list of Features
we can talk about. Also in cooperation with Design team (task
for marketing probably) nice flyers/posters could be produced.
(Don't want to cross-post too many lists, I'll ask both Design
and Ambassadors teams).
Other idea is to avoid tech journalists to use the raw Features
list (but as Robyn pointed out on the previous marketing list
thread, they probably won't...) but use something "more suitable
for media" that really features Features ;-)
Currently F18 Talking Points are poor orphans... [2].
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talking_Points_SOP
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_talking_points
11 years, 4 months