Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
This project is now read‑only. Starting Monday, February 2, please use https://ibm-ceph.atlassian.net/ for all bug tracking management.

Bug 2007280

Summary: [DDF] Isn't Red Hat Ceph Storage 8 only on RHEL 8 ? So this should mention RHEL 8 and not RHEL 7
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage Reporter: Direct Docs Feedback <ddf-bot>
Component: DocumentationAssignee: Eliska <ekristov>
Documentation sub component: DDF QA Contact: Veera Raghava Reddy <vereddy>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG Docs Contact:
Severity: high    
Priority: unspecified CC: asriram, hyelloji, jeremy.coulombe, kdreyer
Version: 5.0Keywords: NoDocsQEReview
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: Backlog   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-03-31 09:59:31 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Direct Docs Feedback 2021-09-23 13:36:45 UTC
Isn't Red Hat Ceph Storage 8 only on RHEL 8 ? So this should mention RHEL 8 and not RHEL 7 

Reported by: jeremyc2

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_ceph_storage/5/html/data_security_and_hardening_guide/assembly-infrastructure-security#annotations:58f4bf62-b98c-4766-93ed-5e9a42d99acb

Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2021-09-23 13:36:51 UTC
Please specify the severity of this bug. Severity is defined here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity.

Comment 2 jeremy 2021-09-23 13:45:38 UTC
This is a severity low Ticket. Also the title should read Isn't Red Hat Ceph Storage 5 only on RHEL 8 ? So this should mention RHEL 8 and not RHEL 7.

Comment 4 jeremy 2022-03-31 11:47:04 UTC
Hi, 

I must admit that I don't quite understand how this isn't a documentation problem since this is in contradiction with the system requirements for RHCS 5 : 
Red Hat Ceph Storage is tested and supported on the following host operating systems:

Red Hat Ceph Storage 5
Vendor	Version
Red Hat Enterprise Linux	RHCS 5.0: 8.4, 8.4 EUS*, 8.5

https://access.redhat.com/articles/1548993


Could someone kindly explain this decision please ?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Comment 5 Eliska 2022-03-31 13:20:27 UTC
(In reply to jeremy from comment #4)
> Hi, 
> 
> I must admit that I don't quite understand how this isn't a documentation
> problem since this is in contradiction with the system requirements for RHCS
> 5 : 
> Red Hat Ceph Storage is tested and supported on the following host operating
> systems:
> 
> Red Hat Ceph Storage 5
> Vendor	Version
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux	RHCS 5.0: 8.4, 8.4 EUS*, 8.5
> 
> https://access.redhat.com/articles/1548993
> 
> 
> Could someone kindly explain this decision please ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

Hello,

thank you for your question. This is indeed a documentation problem. The reason it is now closed and labeled as "not a bug" is because the product number has already been corrected before this bug was raised. The update will be published as part of the next release.

Kind regards,

Eliska

Comment 6 jeremy 2022-03-31 13:37:18 UTC
(In reply to Eliska from comment #5)
> (In reply to jeremy from comment #4)
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I must admit that I don't quite understand how this isn't a documentation
> > problem since this is in contradiction with the system requirements for RHCS
> > 5 : 
> > Red Hat Ceph Storage is tested and supported on the following host operating
> > systems:
> > 
> > Red Hat Ceph Storage 5
> > Vendor	Version
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux	RHCS 5.0: 8.4, 8.4 EUS*, 8.5
> > 
> > https://access.redhat.com/articles/1548993
> > 
> > 
> > Could someone kindly explain this decision please ?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremy
> 
> Hello,
> 
> thank you for your question. This is indeed a documentation problem. The
> reason it is now closed and labeled as "not a bug" is because the product
> number has already been corrected before this bug was raised. The update
> will be published as part of the next release.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eliska
Hello,

Thank you for your kind and timely answer.

Have a great day,
Jeremy