PR#305: Completes pending changes to #171 (#245 continued) - fedora-docs/quick-docs

fedora-docs / quick-docs

#305 Completes pending changes to #171 (#245 continued)

Closed 4 years ago by ankursinha. Opened 4 years ago by ankursinha.

Unknown source pr171 into master

Merge branch 'master' into pr171

Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) • 4 years ago

f3328d4

Re-add anaconda pages to nav

Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) • 4 years ago

5c67676

modules/ROOT/nav.adoc

file modified

+2 -1

		`@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@`
		`* Installation`
		`** xref:creating-and-using-a-live-installation-image.adoc[Creating and using a live installation image]`
		`** xref:raspberry-pi.adoc[Fedora on Raspberry Pi]`
		`-`
		`+ ** xref:anaconda/anaconda.adoc[Anaconda: the Fedora installer]`
		`+ *** xref:anaconda/anaconda_logging.adoc[Anaconda Logging]`

		`* Usage and customisation`
		`** xref:dnf.adoc[Using the DNF software package manager]`

modules/ROOT/pages/_partials/ref_virtio-win-rpm-contents.adoc

file modified

+1 -1

		`@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@`
		* `/usr/share/virtio-win/*.iso` - ISO CDROM containing all the drivers.
		* `/usr/share/virtio-win/*.vfd` - VFD floppy images for using during install of Windows XP
		* `/usr/share/virtio-win/drivers` - Copy of the extracted VFD driver contents
		- * `/usr/share/guest-agent/*.msi` - QEMU Guest Agent 32bit and 64bit MSI installers
		+ * `/usr/share/virtio-win/guest-agent/*.msi` - QEMU Guest Agent 32bit and 64bit MSI installers

		`[[virtio-win-iso-contents]]`
		`== ISO contents`

modules/ROOT/pages/dnf-system-upgrade.adoc

file modified

+15 -9

		`@@ -106,9 +106,15 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo rpmconf -a`
		`+ sudo rpmconf -a`
		`----`

		`+ [NOTE]`
		`+ ====`
		+ Some third party software drop edited configuration files in `/etc/yum.repos.d/` and reverting these files to their original versions may disable updates for the software.
		`+ Please remember to review configuration files in this directory carefully.`
		`+ ====`
		`+`
		For more information you can refer to the man pages (`man rpmconf`).

		`[[sect-upgraded-package-configurations]]`
		`@@ -123,7 +129,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied`
		`+ sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied`
		`----`

		`The list should be empty, but if this is not the case consider removing them as they are not likely to work.`
		`@@ -132,7 +138,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates`
		`+ sudo dnf repoquery --duplicates`
		`----`

		`[NOTE]`
		`@@ -148,7 +154,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf list extras`
		`+ sudo dnf list extras`
		`----`

		`If you see a package you do not need, or use, you can remove it with:`
		`@@ -162,7 +168,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf autoremove`
		`+ sudo dnf autoremove`
		`----`

		`[WARNING]`
		`@@ -212,7 +218,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo rpm --rebuilddb`
		`+ sudo rpm --rebuilddb`
		`----`

		`[[sect-using-distro-sync-to-resolve-dependency-issues]]`
		`@@ -224,7 +230,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf distro-sync`
		`+ sudo dnf distro-sync`
		`----`

		You can also use the `--allowerasing` option will remove packages with dependencies that can not be satisfied.
		`@@ -232,7 +238,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo dnf distro-sync --allowerasing`
		`+ sudo dnf distro-sync --allowerasing`
		`----`

		`[[sect-relabel-files-with-the-latest-selinux-policy]]`
		`@@ -244,7 +250,7 @@`

		`[source,bash]`
		`----`
		`- sudo fixfiles -B onboot`
		`+ sudo fixfiles -B onboot`
		`----`

		`The boot process will likely take a long time, as it checks and fixes SELinux permission labels on all files in your system.`

modules/ROOT/pages/upgrading.adoc

file modified

+4 -4

		`@@ -42,15 +42,15 @@`

		`For instructions on upgrading with the DNF system upgrade plugin, refer to the xref:dnf-system-upgrade.adoc[DNF System Upgrade Quick Doc].`

		`- [[sect-online-rebases-for-fedora-atomic-host-via-rpm-ostree]]`
		`- == Online rebases for Fedora Atomic Host via rpm-ostree`
		`+ [[sect-upgrading-to-major-versions-in-silverblue]]`
		`+ == Upgrading between major versions in Fedora Silverblue`
		`[NOTE]`
		`====`

		`- This is the recommended upgrade method for link:++https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/atomic.html++[Fedora Atomic Host] installations.`
		+ Upgrading between major versions (such as from Fedora 32 to Fedora 33) can be completed using the Software application. Alternatively, Silverblue can be upgraded between major versions using the `ostree` command..

		`====`
		`- For instructions on upgrading Fedora Atomic Host installations between Fedora releases, refer to the link:++https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_Host_upgrade++[dedicated page].`
		`+ For instructions on upgrading Fedora Silverblue Host, refer to the link:++https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-silverblue/updates-upgrades-rollbacks/#upgrading++[dedicated page].`

		`[[sect-can-i-upgrade-between-fedora-releases-using-only-dnf]]`
		`== Can I upgrade between Fedora releases using only DNF?`

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

#245 continued

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

Looks like because I merged master into the branch, it shows all the changes. Shouldn't override changes made in master already. Should I try rebasing to master?

Metadata Update from @ankursinha:
- Pull-request tagged with: needs committer review
- Request assigned

4 years ago

t0xic0der commented 4 years ago

I think so. (As long the changes are limited to the said document only)

1 new commit added

Re-add anaconda pages to nav

4 years ago

rebased onto 5c67676

4 years ago

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

Eh? I re-merged master and both git diff master...pr171 and git diff master..pr171 show the right things, not a clue why pagure shows these files and no longer the files I actually edited..

It keeps saying I've rebased, but I've not rebased, I've pulled in master to the branch.

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

@pbokoc : we need some expert help: could you please have a quick look and tell me what I'm doing wrong here? :cry:

Edited 4 years ago by ankursinha

t0xic0der commented 4 years ago

Is this why you shut down the previous PR prematurely? (But apart from the outcome though, for the changes stayed back at the Pagure's end)

If not, it might just be a sync issue. Never ever faced one before though.

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

Yeh, that's why I'd shut down the previous PR---it was also showing these weird diffs. The changes are still in the branch---if you're up to reviewing them using the command line, you'll see them all without trouble. (the "pull this pull-request locally" bit after the comment box should show how)

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

This must be a pagure bug. It says "rebased onto 5c67676", but 5c67676 isn't even a commit in the main repo on the master branch. It's a commit on my fork. So, pagure is not doing the diffs etc. correctly.

t0xic0der commented 4 years ago

Do we have the Pagure repo on Pagure? We should probably report this occurrence there.

ankursinha commented 4 years ago

I think we're hitting this: https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/953 (reported 4 years ago).

t0xic0der commented 4 years ago

I see. I'll just bookmark 953 of Pagure to stay posted on how it goes. For quick docs though, I would suggest dropping off the branch and creating those changes in a new branch of your fork, and continue from there.

Pull-Request has been closed by ankursinha

4 years ago