16:00:13 <adamw> #startmeeting F34-blocker-review 16:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 29 16:00:13 2021 UTC. 16:00:13 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:00:13 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review' 16:00:18 <adamw> #meetingname F34-blocker-review 16:00:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review' 16:00:24 <adamw> #topic Roll Call 16:00:27 <adamw> lruzicka: it's now :D 16:00:33 <lruzicka[m]> .hello lruzicka 16:00:34 <adamw> morning folks, who's around for blocker fun? 16:00:34 <zodbot> lruzicka[m]: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com> 16:01:25 <frantisekz> .hello2 16:01:26 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com> 16:01:37 <coremodule> .hello2 16:01:38 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com> 16:01:45 * coremodule is here, willing to act as secretary. 16:01:58 <kalev> .hello2 16:01:59 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com> 16:02:04 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello 16:02:04 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1". 16:02:07 * kalev lurks a bit, not sure I'll be around for the whole meeting. 16:02:13 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia 16:02:14 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com> 16:02:39 <bcotton> .hello2 16:02:40 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com> 16:03:12 <pwhalen> .hello2 16:03:13 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com> 16:03:53 <adamw> ahoyhoy everyone 16:04:24 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa 16:04:25 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com> 16:04:34 <Eighth_Doctor> 👋 16:04:41 <sgallagh> .hello2 16:04:42 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com> 16:06:38 <adamw> alrighty, impending slowly-pasted boilerplate alert 16:06:59 <adamw> #chair sgallagh conan_kudo 16:06:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw conan_kudo sgallagh 16:07:09 <adamw> #topic Introduction 16:07:13 <adamw> Why are we here? 16:07:19 <adamw> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor 16:07:26 <sgallagh> Philosophy? Here? 16:07:26 <adamw> the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. 16:07:31 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:07:37 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:07:42 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:07:47 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:07:52 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:07:57 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria 16:08:01 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:08:06 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria 16:08:11 <adamw> #info we have (for Final): 16:08:21 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers 16:08:21 <adamw> #info 2 Accepted Blockers 16:08:26 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions 16:08:45 <adamw> sgallagh: unaccountably, i can't find a turtleneck emoji 16:09:15 <adamw> coremodule: did you volunteer to secretarialize yet? 16:09:21 <coremodule> yee 16:09:22 <lruzicka[m]> 🐢 16:09:27 <coremodule> up at the top 16:09:47 <sgallagh> 🧐 16:09:54 <coremodule> 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢 16:10:07 <lruzicka[m]> sgallagh: the neck is on the left hand side just below the head :) 16:10:42 <adamw> .fire coremodule 16:10:42 <zodbot> adamw fires coremodule 16:10:52 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize after he's done clearing out his desk 16:10:56 <cmurf> turtle farm 16:10:59 <coremodule> can you fire a volunteer? 16:11:05 <adamw> i can 16:11:08 <coremodule> dammit, fine 16:11:17 <adamw> you exceeded the maximum allowable number of turtles 16:11:22 <lruzicka[m]> <adamw "*i* can"> new apple product? 16:11:22 <adamw> that's a firin' 16:11:46 <adamw> alrighty, let's get started with the: 16:11:51 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final Blockers 16:11:51 <sgallagh> adamw: Agreed. You don't need more than four, so long as they are trained by a rat. 16:11:57 <Eighth_Doctor> 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢 16:12:06 <coremodule> the devolution.... 16:12:08 <adamw> where's my largest cannon 16:12:17 <adamw> #topic (1937783) Abrt does not catch a simulated segfault. 16:12:22 <sgallagh> adamw: It sank the boat you mounted it aboard. 16:12:23 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937783 16:12:28 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/300 16:12:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, NEW 16:12:46 <adamw> so, this has been kicking around for a while due to questions about reproducibility 16:13:08 <adamw> right now our best guess appears to be that it happens if you have this directory in your home that libreport wants to migrate but chokes on 16:13:20 <adamw> (though i still can't figure out why anything would fail when hitting that codepath, but never mind) 16:13:34 <Eighth_Doctor> that's a bizarre edge case 16:13:47 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't know if we want to block on it though 16:14:10 <Eighth_Doctor> does it break F33->F34 upgraded systems? 16:14:16 <Eighth_Doctor> or F32->F34 upgraded systems? 16:14:23 <adamw> yeah, we do have a 'all criteria must be satisfied on upgrade' rule but this seems a bit corner case-y 16:14:28 <adamw> don't know if we have that info 16:14:36 <sgallagh> I have an F32->F33->F34 system and I'm not hitting it 16:14:45 <Eighth_Doctor> I didn't hit this either 16:14:52 <sgallagh> I can't speak for F32->F34 directly 16:14:53 <lruzicka[m]> I must admit that I was not able to find any reason why selinux prevented it on my machine. 16:15:06 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker 16:15:07 <sgallagh> -1 blocker 16:15:10 <lruzicka[m]> My machine was updated from F33. 16:15:17 <Eighth_Doctor> -1 blocker 16:15:20 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 FE 16:15:29 <Eighth_Doctor> (if there's a problem and they can fix it, sure) 16:15:32 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker 16:15:35 <lruzicka[m]> Ok, -1 blocker 16:15:39 <pwhalen> -1 blocker 16:15:54 <Southern_Gentlem> at the moment we are not seeing it and it appears to be fixed so nothing to fix 16:15:56 <sgallagh> I'd consider an FE, but we aren't in Freeze for another week anyway 16:16:17 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm inclined to mark it for FE 16:16:34 <Eighth_Doctor> simply because of the freeze point being the end of this week 16:16:40 <kalev> I think it's weird to mark something as FE if we haven't seen the fix 16:17:03 <kalev> it's like, we'll take anything, even a rebase without looking at what's there 16:17:18 <sgallagh> kalev: an FE doesn't require us to accept the fix 16:17:25 <adamw> we accept the issue as being in principle significant enough 16:17:26 <adamw> we're not saying we'd definitely take any particular fix 16:17:37 <sgallagh> Just that we're okay with the risks involved with accepting it during Freeze 16:17:39 <adamw> but in this case i'm not super stressed as it appears to be an upgrade-only issue 16:17:40 <Southern_Gentlem> if next week it appears its back we ca look at it again so either punt or -1 block 16:17:44 <adamw> which makes an FE less important 16:17:55 <sgallagh> I 16:18:00 <adamw> so, -1 blocker 16:18:04 <sgallagh> I'd vote -1 FE if we were already in Freeze 16:18:12 <kalev> -1 blocker 16:18:13 <cmurf> i'm hitting other abrt issues, but not this one, on clean installs 16:18:15 <lruzicka[m]> let's do -1 and if it jumps out again, we can repropose 16:18:27 <sgallagh> Because I think the risk of breaking ABRT for others is greater than the risk of someone hitting this bug. 16:18:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1937783 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to be a corner case affecting upgrades only, most testers cannot reproduce it, so impact does not seem broad enough to qualify as a blocker 16:18:45 <kalev> ack 16:18:48 <sgallagh> ack 16:18:48 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 16:18:50 <frantisekz> ack 16:18:52 <Eighth_Doctor> ack 16:19:07 <lruzicka[m]> ack 16:19:29 <bcotton> ack 16:19:34 <adamw> #agreed 1937783 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to be a corner case affecting upgrades only, most testers cannot reproduce it, so impact does not seem broad enough to qualify as a blocker 16:21:40 <adamw> #topic (1942443) Login using password failed after upgrade to Fedora 34 16:21:41 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942443 16:21:41 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/317 16:21:41 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW 16:21:42 <adamw> mehhhh, how many people need to "log in" anyway 16:21:42 <adamw> rejected 16:21:48 <adamw> don't we all just boot up and admire the beauty of the login screen? isn't that the point? 16:22:27 <sgallagh> adamw: I think you're confusing us with Mac users again 16:22:30 <cmurf> sounds familiar 16:22:44 <cmurf> the bug sounds familiar 16:23:01 <kalev> several people seem to be affected 16:23:27 <adamw> cmurf: it's a sort of follow-on from an earlier blocker 16:23:27 <cmurf> we had something like this as a beta blocker, so I guess the issue is more widespread and the fix didn't completely work? 16:23:28 <adamw> i think 16:23:34 <Eighth_Doctor> I've been affected by this too 16:23:37 <adamw> the fix for the beta blocker broke this 16:23:53 <Eighth_Doctor> didn't something like this also happen during F33 too? 16:23:59 <cmurf> the fix caused a regression? 16:23:59 <kalev> I think I saw benzea comment earlier that he is confused why this appeared again because he thought it got fixed 16:25:00 <adamw> or, wait, hm 16:25:05 <adamw> yeah i'm confused too :D 16:25:07 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933520 is the one we closed last 16:25:49 <Eighth_Doctor> we really should switch pam to have layered configs 16:25:52 <Eighth_Doctor> this crap sucks every release 16:26:39 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker 16:27:14 <bcotton> +1 blocker 16:27:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 blocker 16:27:27 <pwhalen> +1 blocker 16:28:06 <lruzicka[m]> +1 blocker 16:28:16 <sgallagh> +1 blocker 16:28:31 <frantisekz> +1 Blocker 16:28:44 <adamw> er 16:28:47 <adamw> i am still trying to figure things out here 16:28:57 <adamw> like whether this is a dupe of the bug we already accepted as a blocker 16:30:37 <adamw> so benzea thinks this is a dupe of 1933520 , which is already accepted as a blocker but should be fixed already 16:30:54 <cmurf> fixed it for some and not others? 16:32:50 <Southern_Gentlem> so if they think 1933520 is fixed then this isnt a dupe 16:32:53 <adamw> or they somehow got older packages 16:32:54 <adamw> not sure 16:33:03 <Southern_Gentlem> +punt 16:33:41 <cmurf> there was a recent bug in Silverblue where some things got downgraded 16:33:47 <cmurf> i don't know if this was one of the packages 16:34:42 <cmurf> https://github.com/fedora-silverblue/issue-tracker/issues/138 16:34:47 <cmurf> nss is in that list 16:35:17 <kalev> there was a broken dep between nss and nspr 16:35:45 <kalev> the builds were submitted separately to bodhi whereas they should have been both in the same bodhi update so they can go out in lockstep 16:35:46 <cmurf> did it affect f34 silverblue though? that bug report is 33 16:36:15 * kalev doesn't know. 16:36:51 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt 16:36:57 <adamw> reporters didn't say anything about silverblue 16:37:23 <adamw> so our best guess for now is that for some people the config change from -6 is somehow not taking effect, possibly due to local customizations 16:37:36 <adamw> so i'm gonna propose we keep this open and punt for clarification on that 16:37:44 <adamw> thoughts? 16:37:47 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt 16:38:00 <kalev> sounds like a good plan, +1 from me 16:38:00 <cmurf> comment 8 reporter mentioend silverblue 16:38:18 <cmurf> +1 punt 16:38:34 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt 16:38:35 <pwhalen> +1 punt 16:38:38 <frantisekz> +1 punt 16:39:11 <adamw> cmurf: meant the op, heh 16:39:26 <cmurf> needinfo, can it be reproduced with a clean install of beta or newer 16:39:27 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt 16:39:44 <bcotton> +1 punt 16:39:45 <cmurf> or an upgrade from fully updated 32/33, etc 16:40:03 <Southern_Gentlem> so we need info 16:40:15 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1942443 - punt (delay decision) - this seems serious, but benzea believes it's the same as #1933520 and should have been fixed already. if it is not, we need to figure out under what circumstances that fix isn't working before we can decide if the impact is wide enough to be a blocker 16:40:31 <kalev> ack 16:40:33 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 16:40:36 <cmurf> ack 16:41:24 <lruzicka[m]> ack 16:41:49 <adamw> #agreed 1942443 - punt (delay decision) - this seems serious, but benzea believes it's the same as #1933520 and should have been fixed already. if it is not, we need to figure out under what circumstances that fix isn't working before we can decide if the impact is wide enough to be a blocker 16:42:03 <adamw> #topic (1942175) External monitor doesn't work on Lenovo P50 after upgrading to F34 16:42:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942175 16:42:15 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/316 16:42:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mesa, NEW 16:42:34 <cmurf> punt/needinfo, retest with updated mesa 16:42:56 <cmurf> do we have a dual display blocker criterion? 16:43:02 <cmurf> it'd be a regression but... 16:43:05 <kalev> I just submitted the mesa fix that airlied did to bodhi to get the fix out 16:43:34 * kalev has to go make dinner now. 16:45:51 <adamw> yeah, it's a borderline call for blocker anyway 16:45:58 <adamw> but i vote punt in the interests of moving along :P 16:46:05 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt 16:46:24 <Eighth_Doctor> (though I'd be interested in us getting multi-monitor criteria ...) 16:46:56 <pwhalen> +1 punt 16:47:00 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt 16:47:08 <lruzicka[m]> +1 multidisplay crit 16:47:24 <pwhalen> also +1 multidisplay crit 16:47:31 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt 16:47:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed #1942175 - punt (delay decision) - we are waiting on the reporter to report status with a new mesa build here. 16:47:44 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 16:47:49 <adamw> if anyone wants to propose a criterion, please do, on test@ 16:47:54 <Eighth_Doctor> ack 16:47:54 <lruzicka[m]> ack 16:47:56 <bcotton> ack 16:48:02 <pwhalen> ack 16:48:31 <frantisekz> ack 16:48:55 <adamw> #agreed #1942175 - punt (delay decision) - we are waiting on the reporter to report status with a new mesa build here. 16:49:03 <adamw> #topic (1941971) gnome-shell crashes when display blanking is activated 16:49:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941971 16:49:14 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/318 16:49:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mutter, MODIFIED 16:49:42 <cmurf> i am seeing gnome-shell crashes on logout and reboot sometimes, not as much with the final release version 16:49:48 <cmurf> but not when the screen blanks 16:51:37 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker 16:52:26 <adamw> per discussion, this seems specific to having hybrid graphics 16:52:32 <adamw> and possibly having one head driven by each card 16:52:36 <cmurf> hmm 16:52:40 <cmurf> call for testers? 16:52:49 <adamw> "Disconnecting the external monitor cures the issue...Unchecking optimus support in the bios also cures the issue on this laptop" 16:52:53 <lruzicka[m]> I do not have hybrid graphics, so cannot try. 16:53:04 <cmurf> but if we don't have a dual display criterion... 16:53:29 <lruzicka[m]> cmurf: and the dual display criterion should be with one graphics or two? 16:53:35 <cmurf> it's kindof a bad bug 16:53:42 <lruzicka[m]> I'd say one card - two displays. 16:54:07 <adamw> so i'd say either -1 for not being broad enough or punt for a proposed dual-head criteria, but either way there's a fix in u-t so this is going away 16:54:12 <Southern_Gentlem> and this is 2 cards-2 displays 16:54:38 <geraldosimiao> Ohh I'm almost missed 16:54:38 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao 16:54:39 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com> 16:54:45 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt so we can revisit 16:54:54 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt 16:55:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt 16:55:19 <bcotton> -1 blocker, 0 punt 16:55:48 <cmurf> punters will write up a dual head criterion? :D 16:56:31 <adamw> i'm counting a punt vote as volunteering, yes ;) 16:56:58 <lruzicka[m]> cmurf: I can write one, but I am not sure if we really want two cards two displays ? 16:57:03 <frantisekz> -1 blocker 16:57:07 <lruzicka[m]> adamw: dtto 16:57:15 <cmurf> might need to ask one or more maintainers 16:57:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1941971 - punt (delay decision) - this seems quite configuration specific (appears to happen when there are two displays driven by different adapters), but there is some interest in writing a criterion that may cover this case, so we are punting for that discussion to happen. note the bug will likely be closed in any case as a fix has been submitted 16:57:38 <pwhalen> +1 punt 16:57:39 <pwhalen> ack 16:57:43 <cmurf> ack 16:57:45 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 16:57:45 <lruzicka[m]> ack 16:57:47 <bcotton> ack 16:58:04 <adamw> #agreed 1941971 - punt (delay decision) - this seems quite configuration specific (appears to happen when there are two displays driven by different adapters), but there is some interest in writing a criterion that may cover this case, so we are punting for that discussion to happen. note the bug will likely be closed in any case as a fix has been submitted 16:58:13 <cmurf> i'm not sure how much more complicated/fragile it is for separate gpus to drive displays versus one gpu 16:58:21 <adamw> #topic (1943943) Hitting "Update All" in Plasma Discover sometimes does nothing, just cycles back 16:58:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943943 16:58:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/320 16:58:36 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW 16:58:41 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao) 16:58:46 <adamw> ooo look, shiny new feature there 16:59:02 <cmurf> smells blockery to me 16:59:06 <adamw> so, i reported this from openqa testing, haven't confirmed it manually yet, but it's causing update tests to fail and is pretty annoying 16:59:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 blocker 16:59:18 <cmurf> must be able to update with default update mechanism etc 16:59:21 <adamw> it also seems like if you hit it, sometimes even clicking the button ten times in a row doesn't make it work, as that's what i made openqa do 16:59:23 <Eighth_Doctor> it's pretty blockery 16:59:25 <adamw> it just keeps cycling back 16:59:35 <cmurf> +1 blocker 16:59:36 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker 16:59:38 <bcotton> +1 blocker 16:59:44 <adamw> let me see if rdieter is around 17:00:00 <lruzicka[m]> +1 blocker 17:00:06 <Eighth_Doctor> KDE SIG meeting is starting now, so probably? 17:00:49 <geraldosimiao> Yeah already voted on the ticket +1 blocker 17:03:00 <adamw> hi rdieter 17:03:19 <adamw> did you see this report yet? any idea what might be going on? any thoughts on whether it should be a blocker? thanks! 17:04:07 <frantisekz> +1 blocker 17:04:22 <rdieter> adamw: I saw, that's definitely not ideal. I'll report it to upstream folks. I'm *hoping* it's just a matter of lack of user-feedback that it's doing some work after the initial click 17:04:38 <rdieter> but possible it's worse and/or something else. <shrug> 17:05:16 <rdieter> or wait, I'll review, my recollection was wrong. your description says click does nothing and cycles back. got it 17:05:31 <pwhalen> +1 blocker 17:05:44 <adamw> yeah 17:06:03 <sgallagh> +1 blocker 17:06:04 <adamw> well, it's not that it does nothing, it briefly seems to do...something 17:06:10 <adamw> but then cycles right back to showing the button 17:07:02 <adamw> the test boots to console, sets things up so an update is available, then starts up graphical.target, logs in, runs Discover, clicks the 'update' item on the left, then clicks 'Update All' 17:07:35 <adamw> (it doesn't seem like it ever needs to manually refresh, the button is always visible when it gets to that screen) 17:07:42 <rdieter> I'm ok considering as a blocker at least until we can get some upstream feedback 17:09:20 <adamw> ok 17:09:21 <adamw> thanks 17:09:22 * cmurf is confused 17:09:27 <adamw> i can try to get some pk debugging output 17:09:42 <adamw> cmurf: what are you confused about this time :P 17:10:03 <cmurf> Discover is the default add/remove/update tool? 17:10:18 <cmurf> is it using packagekit on the backend? 17:11:13 <cmurf> doesn't matter, never mind 17:11:16 <adamw> yes and yes. 17:12:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical package manager). This includes 17:12:09 <adamw> downloading of packages to be installed/updated" 17:12:15 <adamw> did that fit a line? 17:12:16 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 17:12:19 <bcotton> ack 17:12:24 <frantisekz> it didn't 17:12:24 <lruzicka[m]> ack 17:12:33 <frantisekz> nack, ofc, two lines reasoning 17:12:33 <pwhalen> ack 17:12:34 <cmurf> ok maybe Discover has some way of launching in debug/verbose mode similar to Software 17:12:37 <cmurf> ack 17:13:25 <cmurf> i'm acking the logic not the formatting :D 17:13:28 <Southern_Gentlem> is f34 kde going to wayland? 17:13:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able to...update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops" 17:13:53 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: yeah 17:14:42 <lruzicka[m]> ack again 17:14:59 <pwhalen> ack 17:15:07 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 17:15:36 <adamw> #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able to...update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops" 17:16:32 <adamw> ok, that's all the proposed blockers 17:16:42 <adamw> #topic Proposed Freeze Exception 17:16:54 <adamw> #topic (1942294) Enter, space, backspace key not working with hangul input method 17:17:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942294 17:17:05 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/319 17:17:09 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mutter, POST 17:17:14 <adamw> well this sounds definitely +1 17:17:17 <adamw> might be a blocker 17:17:18 <adamw> let me read that criterion 17:17:21 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe 17:17:30 <lruzicka[m]> +1fe 17:17:51 <Southern_Gentlem> well most likely fixed in the other mutter we had before ? 17:17:51 <cmurf> might be a blocker 17:18:57 <frantisekz> +1 FE 17:19:08 <cmurf> those three are basic input keys, it'd make Hangul input method unworkable 17:19:18 <adamw> no indication this fix is in that mutter 17:19:32 <adamw> "Note this affects various input methods, not only Hangul" 17:19:39 <adamw> so sounds....bad 17:19:42 <cmurf> yes 17:19:43 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker 17:19:45 <cmurf> +1 blocker 17:19:47 <geraldosimiao> Ack 17:20:04 <cmurf> but also needinfo mutter folks 17:20:13 <pwhalen> +1 blocker 17:20:24 <frantisekz> +1 blocker then 17:20:37 <adamw> yeah, for now it sounds worrying enough to block 17:21:04 <lruzicka[m]> ok, revoting +1 17:21:41 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1942294 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is promoted to a blocker as a conditional violation of various desktop criteria that require use of the affected functionality in affected languages/input methods, with reference also to the "Keyboard layout configuration" criterion 17:21:46 <cmurf> ack 17:21:51 <Southern_Gentlem> ack 17:22:01 <lruzicka[m]> jack - joyous ack 17:22:14 <geraldosimiao> ack 17:23:04 <adamw> #agreed 1942294 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is promoted to a blocker as a conditional violation of various desktop criteria that require use of the affected functionality in affected languages/input methods, with reference also to the "Keyboard layout configuration" criterion 17:24:42 <adamw> ok, while we're here, let's take a look at: 17:24:47 <adamw> #topic Accepted Blocker review 17:25:01 <adamw> a reminder that we're not voting on these, they're accepted already, we're just checking progress with fixing them 17:25:03 <adamw> #topic (1929643) logout after switch returns the user to console instead of sddm 17:25:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929643 17:25:14 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/235 17:25:19 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, sddm, NEW 17:25:25 <adamw> rdieter: any news here? it's been on the list for a while 17:27:02 * Southern_Gentlem is updating his F34 kde VM so he can test 17:30:01 <Southern_Gentlem> can we come back to this? 17:30:31 <Eighth_Doctor> adamw, rdieter is finishing up rebooting his laptop 17:30:41 <Eighth_Doctor> he'll be back momentarily 17:31:02 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: there are only two of these anyway 17:31:05 <adamw> let's just hold on for rdieter 17:32:57 * adamw plays muzak 17:33:07 <adamw> okay, one more minute then we'll move on. :P 17:33:44 * Southern_Gentlem hears the Jeopardy theme 17:35:49 <Eighth_Doctor> rdieter's networking is busted (he's going to file a bug), but he's got nothing new on it 17:35:57 <adamw> alright, thanks 17:36:14 <adamw> #info this has been hanging around for a while, we have pinged rdieter to try and do something on it 17:36:22 <adamw> #topic (1938630) include new bootloaders on Fedora 34 install media so UEFI Secure Boot enabled systems can boot from them 17:36:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938630 17:36:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/310 17:36:37 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, shim, ASSIGNED 17:36:59 <adamw> cmurf: did you say you knew something about this? 17:37:25 <cmurf> it's stale information at this point, two weeks old 17:40:28 <adamw> well that beats anything else in the bug, so spill :D 17:42:57 <cmurf> yeah it's complicated, shim 15.3 is what we need but it also needs to be signed to work on systems with UEFI Secure Boot enabled or it will be rejected 17:43:15 <adamw> well, yes, that's sort of the point 17:43:26 <adamw> but are you talking about microsoft's signoff? or just koji build? 17:43:53 <cmurf> i'm not sure about the status of 15.3, but two weeks ago it needed more testing and the trouble is if it's premature, gets signed, and there are enough bugs to warrant rebuild then it also means resigning 17:44:25 <cmurf> signing is maybe a few days or a week? not multiple weeks 17:45:57 <cmurf> my take on the progress is that we're likely to slip and not hit either preferred or target dates, but now i'm really speculating 17:46:04 <adamw> so we're talking about microsoft's signing, okay. 17:46:47 <cmurf> we're talking about all of it, it can't be signed until it's sufficiently done and tested to hopefully avoid having to rebuild and resign another one 17:47:54 <adamw> okay, 17:48:29 <cmurf> but we also can't test it until it's signed 17:48:46 <adamw> #info status here is the upstream 15.3 release is still being worked on and devs need to be confident it is baked before submitting it for SB signing, we cannot do much downstream until that is done, we do not have a very solid ETA on that yet 17:48:58 * Southern_Gentlem fully updated f34 kde in a VM i can logout and it takes back to the login screen 17:49:01 <cmurf> ack 17:49:03 <adamw> bcotton_: this seems like it might need some whipping 17:49:17 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: i believe the bug is *after switching users* 17:49:30 <adamw> you need to have two user accounts, log in as one, switch to the other, log out 17:49:40 <cmurf> yeah the past track record is whipping doesn't work well, it sorta defies even getting approximate time frames 17:49:57 <cmurf> it really reminds me of book writing 17:50:05 <cmurf> publisher: look just pick a date 17:50:06 * Southern_Gentlem testing 17:50:42 <cmurf> author: too many unknowns, could be 3 weeks could be 3 months 17:50:56 <cmurf> or use the cableguy metaphor 17:51:19 <lruzicka[m]> Sorry, I will need to go. Kids claim their bedroom. 17:51:25 <lruzicka[m]> Have a nice day, everyone. 17:51:52 <cmurf> multiple things have to get done and each of them has a range of time, so i think that puts us at target release date at the earliest and maybe slipping a couple weeks at the latest 17:52:44 <adamw> cya lruzicka 17:52:47 <adamw> we're mostly done here 17:52:49 <cmurf> what'll help make it go faster once it lands though, is being ready to do a test day 17:53:17 <cmurf> and have as many folks with UEFI merely boot a USB stick with the new shim and grub 17:53:50 <cmurf> the more and early test coverage we get, the better 17:55:15 <bcotton> adamw: Delta doesn't have a direct IND-SEA route anymore, but I stand by my offer to go sit on Satya Nadella's desk :-) 17:55:21 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf, so that will pull in with the Respins 17:55:58 <cmurf> i think adamw or bcotton can just ping pjones directly on irc, i think bz doesn't get his attention very quickly right now 17:56:16 <adamw> i ping him by irc, bugzilla, fax and telegraph 17:56:29 <adamw> then when that doesn't work i call all the bars in massachusetts till i find the one he's in 17:56:30 <cmurf> as for f33, it's going to get new shim and new grub 17:57:00 <cmurf> too soon to tell if f32 will get it 17:57:10 <cmurf> best effort once everything else is stable and working 17:57:33 <cmurf> and 32 may go EOL and cut loose at that point, and we'll just recommend UEFI Secure Boot folks upgrade 17:57:36 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf in this case i was referring to F34 17:58:41 <cmurf> do we want to draw straws who bugs pjones? :D 17:58:56 <Southern_Gentlem> why not both 17:59:03 <bcotton> well i'm not wearing the shirt, but let's #action bcotton 17:59:16 <bcotton> (mattdm is wearing the shirt today, so i guess that's close enough) 18:01:08 <adamw> #action bcotton to keep on top of progress here 18:01:12 <adamw> #topic Open floor 18:01:17 <adamw> alright, that's everything I had 18:01:46 <cmurf> Southern_Gentlem: just the potential for regressions for a larger number of people than those who benefit from e.g. f32 having UEFI Secure Boot support beyond its EOL 18:02:45 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf well its time for them to upgrade so not an issue to me 18:03:13 <cmurf> yep 18:04:10 <geraldosimiao> Friends, this bug have blocker potential? Or not? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1940968 18:06:17 <adamw> gonna say probably not 18:06:32 <adamw> my vote anyway 18:06:41 <adamw> it's annoying, but there are workarounds and seems reasonable to fix with update 18:06:45 <adamw> anyone else have thoughts? 18:06:56 <adamw> i'd give it an FE for lives, though, if we got to that point 18:08:08 <geraldosimiao> For info purposes: I came back to my notebook and tried to reproduce the kde logout bug 18:08:21 <geraldosimiao> It seems working fine here 18:08:30 <geraldosimiao> No bug 18:08:53 <geraldosimiao> Switching users and all 18:09:09 <bcotton> i'll second adamw's feelings. geraldosimiao if you feel differently, feel free to propose it as a blocker anyway :-) 18:09:27 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 FE 18:09:51 <geraldosimiao> That plasma wayland is annoying but I think it's only a FE... 18:10:01 <adamw> geraldosimiao: interesting, thanks, can you post in the bug? 18:10:25 <Southern_Gentlem> and KDe is a blocking DE 18:10:25 <geraldosimiao> Yes sure 18:11:25 <geraldosimiao> I tried to say *plasma wayland bug... Rsrsrrs 18:12:00 <geraldosimiao> Smartphone doesn't help here 18:14:26 <adamw> okay, any other business? 18:15:01 <geraldosimiao> No 18:16:06 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone 18:18:21 <adamw> #endmeeting