| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This was requested, though I think an issue was never filed. If people are
supposed to invoke it, even for testing, then it's reasonable to make it
"public".
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This is just wrong. Quering the symlink names with udevadm is not the
easiest, but I think that's the safest way for a documented example.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I recently tried adding a FIDO2-Device as an unlocking method to the LUKS2 partition containing my Fedora install.
When trying to do this, I stumbled upon the here edited man files detailing how to do this.
I however could not unlock my partition with my FIDO2-Device after editing /etc/crypttab and rebooting.
As I found out after a while, I needed to regenerate / update my currently running / used initramfs (https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/705809).
This would have most likely solved itself for me with the next kernel update install (as far as I understand).
So I propose changing the files edited here to recommend or at least inform the user about this.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(The one case that is left unchanged is '< <(subcommand)'.)
This way, the style with no gap was already dominant. This way, the reader
immediately knows that ' < ' is a comparison operator and ' << ' is a shift.
In a few cases, replace custom EOF replacement by just EOF. There is no point
in using someting like "_EOL" unless "EOF" appears in the text.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Quoting Richard Fontana in [1]:
CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content
(corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system). We plan
to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no longer be
allowed for code.
Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that
licenses that preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance
cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a clause that says: "No trademark or
patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed
or otherwise affected by this document." (The trademark side of that clause
is nonproblematic from a FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular
Creative Commons licenses have similar clauses.
For the case of our documentation snippets, patent issues do not matter much.
But it is always nicer to have a license that is considerred acceptable without
any further considerations. So let's change the license to the (now recommended
replacement) MIT-0.
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NO7KGDNL5GX3KCB7T3XTGFA3QPSUJA6R/
Using 'git blame -b' and 'git log -p --follow', I identified the following
folks as having made non-trivial changes to those snippets:
Lennart Poettering
Tom Gundersen
Luca Bocassi
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Thomas Mühlbacher
Daan De Meyer
I'll ask for confirmation in the pull request.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Documentation is licensed under LGPL-2.1-or-later.
Scripts are MIT to facilitate reuse.
Examples are relicensed to CC0-1.0 to maximise copy-and-paste
for users, with permission from authors.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Based on a report from Fossies.org using Codespell.
Followup to #15436
|
| | |
|
| |
|
