Bug 2066181

Summary:	[RFE] Collect TigerVNC-related information
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Reporter:	Pavel Moravec <pmoravec>
Component:	sos	Assignee:	Pavel Moravec <pmoravec>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Miroslav Hradílek <mhradile>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	9.0	CC:	agk, amike, bmr, mhradile, mkluson, plambri, sbradley, theute
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	FutureFeature, OtherQA, Triaged
Target Release:	---	Flags:	pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	sos-4.3-2.el9	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-11-15 11:12:24 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Pavel Moravec 2022-03-21 07:13:34 UTC

This bug was initially created as a copy of Bug #2062908

I am copying this bug because: 

to be in par between 8.7 and 9.1


Since TigerVNC moved to systemd-based operation with the 1.10 release, it has had configuration files that aren't collected by sos. This means more time spent collecting TigerVNC-specific configuration files.

As such, we'd like to request that sos collect all files under /etc/tigervnc, which contains the new configuration files we need. No passwords are shared in these files (they live in users' home directories).

Also, we like to ask that the status of tigervnc services be tracked. They can be found with "systemctl --list-units" under the designation tigervnc@:$VNCDISPLAY.service, where $VNCDISPLAY is a number starting at 1 stating the TigerVNC display number.

Comment 3 Pavel Moravec 2022-03-22 07:35:56 UTC

Hello,
as our QE might not have available systems for testing the fix, would you be able to verify the fix once available (as a candidate package for 9.1)?

Comment 4 Andrew Mike 2022-04-06 14:14:45 UTC

Sorry for the delay. Yes, I can help test.

Comment 5 Pavel Moravec 2022-04-06 15:03:54 UTC

Thanks for committing to testing. I will ask you to verify once we have a candidate build with the fix ready (see ITM and DTM for estimations/plans).

Comment 7 Pavel Moravec 2022-06-16 10:13:59 UTC

*** Bug 2097671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 19 errata-xmlrpc 2022-11-15 11:12:24 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (sos bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2022:8275