17:00:40 <tflink> #startmeeting F16-blocker-review
17:00:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep 16 17:00:40 2011 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:47 <tflink> #meetingname F16-blocker-review
17:00:48 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f16-blocker-review'
17:00:54 <tflink> #topic roll call
17:01:08 <tflink> who's ready for some blocker bug review?
17:01:15 * nirik is lurking around.
17:01:43 <clumens> THUD
17:01:59 <cebbert> not here
17:02:10 <tflink> I see clumens has landed?
17:02:53 <clumens> that's one small step
17:02:59 <jwb> backwards
17:04:22 * tflink waits one more minute before moving on
17:04:55 <cebbert> oh, i guess i'm here
17:04:57 <tflink> any volunteers for secretary duty?
17:06:13 <tflink> adamw: you around?
17:06:24 <tflink> #topic Introduction
17:06:36 <tflink> I think that everyone knows this, but in case you didn't ...
17:06:45 <tflink> #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 the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
17:07:01 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:07:17 <tflink> the current beta blocker bug list is at:
17:07:25 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
17:07:46 <tflink> any objections to starting with the proposed blockers?
17:08:03 <cebbert> also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=713564&hide_resolved=1
17:08:58 <adamw> yo
17:09:16 <tflink> adamw: just in time
17:09:23 * athmane is around
17:09:24 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737916
17:09:25 <buggbot> Bug 737916: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dlehman, POST, FormatSetupError: invalid device specification
17:09:33 <tflink> #info FormatSetupError: invalid device specification
17:10:03 <tflink> This partition layout is rather non-standard, so I don't think this is a beta blocker
17:10:11 <tflink> but a fix is almost ready
17:10:25 <tflink> so I'm -1 beta blocker, +1 beta NTH, +1 final blocker
17:10:30 <tflink> any other thoughts?
17:12:16 <tflink> proposed #agreed - RejectedBetaBlocker, AcceptedNTH, AcceptedFinalBlocker - Doesn't hit any beta release criteria but a fix is almost ready and it would be nice to have fixed for beta. Hits the final release criterion: The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above
17:12:27 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:12:42 <adamw> well
17:12:48 <adamw> i'm +1 nth
17:13:09 <adamw> then the question is whether we actually take it for beta...that's why we did the updates.img
17:13:17 <cebbert> it would have been nice if we knew about this earlier :/
17:13:22 <adamw> yeah.
17:14:29 <adamw> but nth is a good choice anyway: we can take it for rc2 and if it causes massive pain and suffering, back it back out again
17:14:54 <tflink> that sounds like a plan
17:15:01 <cebbert> yes
17:15:18 <tflink> otherwise we can build a test iso for more testing if we want to be extra cautious
17:15:45 <adamw> meh, this is fedora!
17:17:23 <tflink> so, any votes on the proposal?
17:19:26 <adamw> ack
17:19:39 <jwb> this is going to be a really long meeting
17:19:48 <jwb> silence is agreement?
17:19:56 <tflink> at the rate we're going, yeah
17:20:06 <tflink> jwb: you could vote too :)
17:20:33 <tflink> alrighty, I'm taking cebbert's comment as an implicit ack
17:20:36 <jwb> i'm the epitome of 'uninformed voter' for everything except the kernel bugs
17:20:51 <tflink> #agreed - RejectedBetaBlocker, AcceptedNTH, AcceptedFinalBlocker - Doesn't hit any beta release criteria but a fix is almost ready and it would be nice to have fixed for beta. Hits the final release criterion: The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above
17:21:01 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964
17:21:03 <buggbot> Bug 738964: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Unable to make system bootable due to bootloader choice
17:21:10 <tflink> #info Unable to make system bootable due to bootloader choice
17:23:01 <adamw> heads-up: I just added a new proposed blocker
17:23:19 <adamw> there's really not enough info in this one yet
17:23:22 <tflink> adamw: k, we'll get it after we go through the ones already on the list
17:23:25 <adamw> i just wanted to have it on the list to make sure we don't lose it
17:23:43 <adamw> we need to have his logs so we can see exactly what problem anaconda had
17:23:52 <tflink> yeah, I'd say punt on it for now.
17:24:11 <adamw> yup.
17:24:30 <tflink> proposed - 738964 - Not enough information to decide on this right now, will revisit once logs have been posted
17:25:05 <adamw> ack
17:25:20 <tflink> #agreed - 738964 - Not enough information to decide on this right now, will revisit once logs have been posted
17:25:30 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738387
17:25:38 <tflink> #info ipw2200 driver deadlocks with itself trying to take rtnl_mutex
17:26:18 <adamw> so, this makes the beta unusable on any system with an ipw2200 wireless adapter
17:26:25 <tflink> yeah
17:26:28 <adamw> those are getting a bit long in the tooth but they were very popular when they came out
17:26:32 <tflink> how common is that adapter?
17:26:46 <cebbert> too common, unfortunately
17:26:49 <adamw> it was the first gen of intel wireless adapter which got really widespread adoption
17:26:50 <tflink> I'm not sure about blocker but I'm +1 nth on this
17:26:53 <pjones> tflink: very common in notebooks from 3-5 years ago
17:26:54 <adamw> same line as 3945, 4965
17:27:06 <pjones> of course, the driver has been a piece of junk for most of a decade now
17:27:08 <cebbert> needs to be a blocker
17:27:17 <jwb> it's also fixed already
17:27:26 <adamw> just like about half of current laptops have an intel 5xxx series wireless adapter, about half of laptops from that time had an ipw2200
17:27:27 <tflink> since a confirmed fix is available, NTH should be enough, though
17:27:30 <cebbert> not only does it fail, it takes down the entire network stack
17:27:34 <pjones> jwb: well that's awfully convenient.
17:27:39 <jwb> i know, right?
17:27:40 <adamw> enough to get it in, but really, it ought to be a blocker
17:27:58 <adamw> otherwise, if we somehow muffed the fix for this in rc2 but got everything else right, we wouldn't have grounds to respin and fix it.
17:28:10 <tflink> point
17:28:21 <cebbert> given that it kills wired networking, it's got to be a blocker IMO
17:28:22 <adamw> so, i'm +1 blocker
17:28:32 <pjones> cebbert: yeah
17:29:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 738387 - AcceptedBlocker - While this is HW specific, that HW is rather common and hits the alpha release criterion: The installed system must be able to download and install updates with yum and the default graphical package manager in all release-blocking desktops
17:29:41 <adamw> acksicles
17:30:05 <tflink> is it that cold out to day?
17:30:14 <cebbert> yes
17:30:33 <tflink> any other ack/nak/patch?
17:30:39 <pjones> no, it's really nice out today.  might top out around 62F.
17:31:12 <cebbert> +1 blocker
17:31:23 <tflink> #agreed - 738387 - AcceptedBlocker - While this is HW specific, that HW is rather common and hits the alpha release criterion: The installed system must be able to download and install updates with yum and the default graphical package manager in all release-blocking desktops
17:31:31 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738735
17:31:32 <buggbot> Bug 738735: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rpandit, NEW, repoclosure failure in 16-Beta.RC1
17:31:40 <tflink> #info repoclosure failure in 16-Beta.RC1
17:31:53 <tflink> this should be an easy one
17:31:56 <adamw> no-brainer!@
17:31:59 <adamw> fortunately, it's easy to fix.
17:32:08 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 738735 - AcceptedBlocker - There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install
17:32:13 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:32:32 <adamw> ack
17:32:55 <cebbert> ack
17:33:05 <tflink> #agreed - 738735 - AcceptedBlocker - There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install
17:33:15 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738803
17:33:17 <buggbot> Bug 738803: high, unspecified, ---, mgrepl, NEW, SELinux denial(s) prevent(s) gnome-shell from starting on F16 Beta RC1
17:33:24 <tflink> #info SELinux denial(s) prevent(s) gnome-shell from starting on F16 Beta RC1
17:33:39 <cebbert> XFCE works
17:34:02 <tflink> do the other desktops work, too?
17:34:18 <tflink> either way, several people are hitting this for gnome
17:34:22 <tflink> I'm +1 blocker
17:34:50 <adamw> everyone hits it for shell, i'm fairly sure
17:34:58 <adamw> and I have the cause narrowed down quite well
17:35:00 <adamw> +1 blocker
17:35:16 <adamw> it's not entirely clear whether it only affects live boot or whether it also affects install from DVD, but either way, it's a blocker.
17:35:17 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 738803 - AcceptedBlocker - No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration should crash or be entirely non-functional on boot of the installed system using default installation choices
17:35:37 <jsmith> ACK
17:36:11 <adamw> we can even go with alpha "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments. The web browser must be able to download files, load extensions, and log into FAS"
17:36:16 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 738803 - AcceptedBlocker - The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media
17:36:19 <cebbert> +1
17:36:20 <adamw> as this renders live Shell entirely unusable
17:36:29 <adamw> yeah, that one too
17:36:39 <adamw> ack
17:36:44 * tflink isn't going to be too picky about the criterion
17:36:48 <adamw> sure
17:36:53 <tflink> #agreed - 738803 - AcceptedBlocker - The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media
17:37:06 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735866
17:37:07 <buggbot> Bug 735866: unspecified, unspecified, ---, harald, NEW, boot hangs with udevadm settle - timeout of 120 seconds
17:37:16 <tflink> #info boot hangs with udevadm settle - timeout of 120 seconds
17:37:38 <adamw> this one is getting murkier by the minute
17:37:45 <adamw> and it seems like it can be triggered by multiple issues
17:37:57 <adamw> i've seen it maximum of one time with rc1, might be zero times, i don't quite recall
17:38:36 <tflink> from the reports, it sounds like ~ 20-30% maybe?
17:38:52 <tflink> +2 blocker from bz comments
17:39:09 * jsmith hasn't encountered it yet, but it does appear to be blocker-like
17:39:49 <adamw> kamil sounds like he's hitting it _in the installer_)
17:39:51 <adamw> which is interesting
17:39:56 <adamw> i'd only seen it live
17:40:37 <adamw> j_dulaney doesn't seem to be around unfortunately...
17:40:37 <tflink> yeah, I haven't seen it yet in any of the non-live installs I've done thus far
17:41:30 <tflink> well, I'd say we accept as a blocker for now or wait for more information
17:41:43 <tflink> I think I'm +1 blocker on this, though
17:42:17 <pjones> I'm not convinced this isn't the same problem we've had with udev*settle since we switched to udev years ago, but hey, sure, let's call it a blocker.
17:42:18 <adamw> the only issue i have with taking it as blocker is it's going to roadblock us from building an rc2 to test everything else, and it's still _really_ vague...but, mmf.
17:42:40 <adamw> pjones: we really didn't have any issues with it for f15 that i recall. but it could be more or less the same thing, yeah.
17:43:01 <pjones> adamw: we've really never not had issues with it, though they do seem to fluctuate in severity quite a bit.
17:43:05 <tflink> we can't build an RC if we accept this?
17:43:06 <adamw> the only really critical impact of this is on anaconda, but i guess there's no way liveinst can 'work around' a stuck udevadm settle, since the whole point is you want the udev queue to be clear...
17:43:24 <adamw> tflink: right. we have to address all acceptedblockers for each rc compose.
17:43:35 <adamw> after all, if there's a blocker bug we know it doesn't fix, it's not an rc, is it? it couldn't possibly be released.
17:43:46 <jwb> that seems... inflexible
17:43:50 <tflink> then I'm -1 blocker for now, +1 nth
17:43:52 <adamw> we could do a tc3, there's no real reason not to, we've just never done it.
17:44:03 <adamw> rc1, tc3, rc2. hey, it'd be something fun.
17:44:25 <cebbert> +1 blocker, though the real problem looks really unclear
17:44:29 <tflink> mix it up a bit :)
17:44:34 <adamw> the practical issue is this seems like another one where we're getting no developer input.
17:44:50 <jwb> well, harald just landed back home after touring the US yesterday...
17:44:55 <jwb> so he's probably pretty jet lagged
17:44:55 <adamw> pjones: cebbert: any hints on debugging?
17:45:12 <adamw> jwb: yeah, i know, i've heard the same story about lennart. i am playing the world's tiniest fucking violin.
17:45:15 <pjones> adamw: I recommend kicking the machine until it no longer exhibits the symptoms.
17:45:16 <cebbert> yeah, harald needs to look at that
17:45:22 <adamw> pjones: percussive maintenance!
17:45:56 <pjones> there's always one way to solve the halting problem.
17:45:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 735866 - AcceptedBlocker - The cause(s) of this are still very unclear but the symptoms are blocker material. The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media
17:46:11 <adamw> okay, so i guess i ack, but if we fix everything else and don't fix this, let's spin a tc3.
17:47:03 <adamw> tflink, please ask everyone who's hitting this to verify they still get it with rc1, and attach their entire /var/log/messages .
17:47:10 <adamw> (if you're secretaryizing, that is)
17:47:17 <adamw> if you're not, er, i'll start doing it...
17:47:29 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 735866 - AcceptedBlocker - The cause(s) of this are still very unclear but the symptoms are blocker material. The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media. Ask reporters to post their entire /var/log/messages
17:47:41 <tflink> adamw: either way. I can do it after the meeting
17:47:49 <adamw> meh, i'll start in on it
17:47:52 <adamw> ack
17:48:02 * tflink isn't good enough at multi-tasking to do the meeting and update bugs at the same time
17:48:55 <tflink> any other ack/nak/patch?
17:49:32 * tflink will take cebbert's earlier comment as an implicit ack otherwise
17:50:27 <tflink> #agreed - 735866 - AcceptedBlocker - The cause(s) of this are still very unclear but the symptoms are blocker material. The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media. Ask reporters to post their entire /var/log/messages
17:50:45 <tflink> ok, that's all of the proposed blockers on the original list
17:50:49 <tflink> adamw: you had a new one?
17:51:24 <adamw> it turns out not to be
17:51:29 <adamw> i misread the criterion
17:51:32 <adamw> i've proposed it as nth instead
17:51:41 <tflink> ok, we'll move on to nth then
17:51:50 <adamw> actually
17:51:58 <adamw> we should bring up https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737118
17:52:04 <adamw> if only to say 'oh fuck, it's broken'
17:52:06 <buggbot> Bug 737118: unspecified, unspecified, ---, mgracik, ON_QA, firstboot-text prevents system from booting
17:52:24 <tflink> or we can go over the accepted blockers first :)
17:52:32 <adamw> yeah, acceptedblockers before proposed nth, i think
17:53:15 <tflink> alrighty, non-verified blockers here we go!
17:53:28 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737118
17:53:30 <buggbot> Bug 737118: unspecified, unspecified, ---, mgracik, ASSIGNED, firstboot-text prevents system from booting
17:53:40 <tflink> #info firstboot-text prevents system from booting
17:54:11 <dwalsh> adamw, Here
17:54:20 <adamw> dwalsh: thanks - we'll get to that bug in a bit, i'll ping you when we do
17:54:32 <adamw> so, we hoped this was fixed in rc1, but it appears to be worse
17:54:44 <adamw> there seem to be systemd/plymouth interactions going on with this one
17:54:58 <adamw> halfline: ping?
17:55:35 <adamw> the good news is that mgracik and I agreed a nuclear option; if we can't get the help from ray and lennart in  time and don't manage to figure this out, we can simply drop firstboot-text.service at least for beta
17:55:40 <adamw> it's really not at all useful for fedora.
17:56:54 <adamw> it just runs /usr/bin/setup, which you can log in and run manually anyway, and which doesn't do much anyway.
17:57:16 <tflink> do we want to set a deadline for that?
17:57:20 <tflink> RC2 maybe?
17:57:31 <tflink> since we're going to have a tc3
17:57:35 <adamw> that'd work
17:57:43 <adamw> a tc3 with this bug still in it wouldn't be horrible
17:59:05 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 737118 - This seems to have gotten worse from TC2 to RC1 and appears to involce systemd/plymouth interactions. If a fix isn't available by RC2, will disable firstboot-text.service for beta
18:00:11 <adamw> ack
18:00:18 <cebbert> +1
18:00:18 <tflink> #agreed - 737118 - This seems to have gotten worse from TC2 to RC1 and appears to involce systemd/plymouth interactions. If a fix isn't available by RC2, will disable firstboot-text.service for beta
18:00:28 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737731
18:00:29 <buggbot> Bug 737731: high, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Bootloader is left in F15 configuration when preupgrading to F16
18:00:39 <tflink> #info Bootloader is left in F15 configuration when preupgrading to F16
18:00:56 <adamw> i expect this is fixed in rc1 by the same fix as 735730
18:01:00 <adamw> but i didn't get around to re-testing yet
18:01:07 <tflink> needs testing
18:01:09 <adamw> yup
18:01:42 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 737731 - Should be fixed by anaconda-16.18-1, need re-testing for verification of fix
18:01:48 <cebbert> +1
18:02:06 <adamw> ack
18:02:08 <tflink> #agreed - 737731 - Should be fixed by anaconda-16.18-1, need re-testing for verification of fix
18:02:18 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731529
18:02:19 <buggbot> Bug 731529: high, unspecified, ---, pjones, ON_QA, grub making uefi calls without aligning stack pointer
18:02:26 <tflink> #info grub making uefi calls without aligning stack pointer
18:02:59 <tflink> sounds like this has been fixed
18:03:09 <pjones> there's some "this broke my machine" stuff on there, but none of it looks like it's really related to this bug, and all of it is on machines we explicitly don't have release criteria for
18:03:13 <tflink> and remaining related issues have been put into another bug
18:03:33 <adamw> the initial bug, yeah...the newer grub seems to be breaking some mac efi installs, but we don't know if that was specifically caused by the fix for this bug, and it's clearly a different issue anyway.
18:03:47 <adamw> i'm trusting to pjones to confirm the bug is fixed, btw, as i don't know if QA actually has any affected hardware.
18:04:10 <adamw> if pjones is confident the bug is fixed, we can close this one.
18:04:35 <pjones> I think it's working on all the hardware I've got ;)
18:04:51 <adamw> actually, we can set it VERIFIED, as the updated grub isn't out of testing yet.
18:05:05 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 731529 - Close the bug as verified - all remaining issues have been put into other bugs
18:05:20 <adamw> verified isn't a closure state
18:05:22 <adamw> but otherwise, yeah.
18:05:38 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 731529 - Move to VERIFIED - all remaining issues have been put into other bugs
18:05:48 <tflink> details, details, details ...
18:05:51 <jsmith> ACK
18:05:58 <tflink> #agreed - 731529 - Move to VERIFIED - all remaining issues have been put into other bugs
18:06:06 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736521
18:06:08 <buggbot> Bug 736521: unspecified, unspecified, ---, kernel-maint, CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE, mdadm crash/oops when stopping array in installer environment
18:06:15 <tflink> #info mdadm crash/oops when stopping array in installer environment
18:06:44 <tflink> another one that needs confirmation with RC1 or later
18:07:03 <cebbert> we think this one is fixed by the md updates in kernel 3.1-rc6
18:07:34 <tflink> yeah, it was tested with a unofficial compose
18:07:39 <adamw> we seem to have quite a lot of confirmation that the updated kernel fixes it, i'd be happiest if someone said 'i used rc1 and it worked', but hey.
18:08:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 736521 - Appears to have been fixed with kernel update but confirmation with official compose >= RC1 would be preferred
18:08:48 <cebbert> ack
18:08:57 <tflink> #agreed - 736521 - Appears to have been fixed with kernel update but confirmation with official compose >= RC1 would be preferred
18:09:27 <tflink> ok, I think that's all the non-VERIFIED blockers
18:09:36 <adamw> ack
18:09:40 <adamw> ooh, i'm late.
18:10:03 <tflink> you said pretty much the same thing earlier, figured it was an implicit ack
18:10:13 <tflink> on to proposed NTH
18:10:18 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731549
18:10:20 <buggbot> Bug 731549: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dlehman, NEW, message about BIOS boot partitions and GPT disklabels is hard to understand
18:10:28 <tflink> #info message about BIOS boot partitions and GPT disklabels is hard to understand
18:10:48 <adamw> so this one is just to change the text of the message about the bios boot partition
18:10:56 <adamw> so it would be a safe change (Nothing Could Possibly Go Wrong)
18:11:05 * jsmith doesn't see how that qualifies as a blocker
18:11:10 <adamw> we're on NTH.
18:11:15 <jsmith> Doh!
18:11:19 * jsmith should pay more attention in class
18:11:23 <pjones> guess that explains that ;)
18:11:38 <adamw> go stand in the corner, jsmith.
18:11:50 * jsmith puts on the dunce cap and sits in the corner
18:11:55 <tflink> +1 nth, this _shouldn't_ cause issues
18:12:00 * tflink hates the S-word
18:12:01 <adamw> mo, dlehman and I are all happy with the new text
18:12:12 <adamw> the only possible issue is a process one - we're past string freeze
18:12:27 <adamw> but this doesn't change the _intent_ of the message, so current translations would still be okay
18:12:41 <adamw> i'm not an expert on translation stuff, though, so if anyone is...speak up
18:12:49 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 731549 - AcceptedNTH - Simple fix that shouldn't cause regressions and it would help users to better understand partition changes
18:12:57 <adamw> ack
18:13:03 <tflink> oh yeah, we passed the translation deadline, didn't we?
18:13:57 <tflink> is translation i18n or l10n?
18:14:00 <pjones> i18n
18:14:31 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 731549 - AcceptedNTH - Simple fix that shouldn't cause regressions and it would help users to better understand partition changes. Verify that no changes to i18n are required
18:14:36 <adamw> ack
18:14:43 <tflink> #agreed - 731549 - AcceptedNTH - Simple fix that shouldn't cause regressions and it would help users to better understand partition changes. Verify that no changes to i18n are required
18:14:53 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737060
18:14:54 <buggbot> Bug 737060: unspecified, unspecified, ---, sgrubb, ON_QA, auditd is not enabled by default (Fedora 16 Beta TC2)
18:15:03 <tflink> #info auditd is not enabled by default (Fedora 16 Beta TC2)
18:15:11 <tflink> this one is annoying, I'm +1 nth
18:16:37 <adamw> yup, me too.
18:16:59 <jwb> why is auditd not being enabled annoying?
18:17:03 <adamw> it'd be good if you could reply to my note, though. i'd like to make sure the current scriptlets are actually correct.
18:17:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 737060 - AcceptedNTH - While not a blocker, it does make it harder to find SELinux issues and a fix is available
18:17:12 <adamw> jwb: you don't get any selinux alerts unless it's running
18:17:17 <adamw> so in a sense...it's less annoying...=)
18:17:24 <pjones> so sortof the opposite of annoying, yes.
18:17:29 <pjones> except things still fail, you just don't see why.
18:17:32 <adamw> right.
18:17:52 <adamw> and it makes them harder to report, as you can't use sealert's Reporting SELinux Denials For Idiots process.
18:17:56 <tflink> which is more annoying? sealerts or digging through logs in case it's a SELinux error?
18:18:19 <jwb> yes.
18:18:22 <adamw> heh.
18:18:42 * adamw does wish he could, just once a cycle, yell 'CAN WE PLEASE SHOOT SELINUX IN THE HEAD' really loud.
18:18:47 <jwb> the source of the annoyance is getting an error in the first place, so we should just fix all the bugs before release.
18:18:54 <jwb> hahahaahahahah
18:19:01 <adamw> jwb: next release is scheduled for 3123AD
18:19:15 <adamw> so, anyway...ack.
18:19:25 <tflink> #agreed - 737060 - AcceptedNTH - While not a blocker, it does make it harder to find SELinux issues and a fix is available
18:19:33 <adamw> but tflink, please read my message and reply, i would like to be sure the scriptlets in my update are actually correct...
18:19:51 * tflink puts it on his todo list for today
18:19:57 <adamw> thanks.
18:20:51 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605
18:20:52 <buggbot> Bug 720605: medium, unspecified, ---, pbrobinson, ON_QA, Redraws do not always render completely - affects all hardware - workaround: CLUTTER_PAINT=disable-clipped-redraws:disable-culling
18:21:03 <tflink> #info Redraws do not always render completely - affects all hardware - workaround: CLUTTER_PAINT=disable-clipped-redraws:disable-culling
18:21:19 <adamw> this is the redraw corruption in shell that was hitting everyone for a long time
18:21:32 <adamw> we finally got a fix for it, the fix works, and I think I cheated and got it pulled into RC1.
18:21:38 <adamw> so, definite ack for me.
18:21:56 <tflink> well, it sounds like we have a tested fix
18:22:22 <adamw> yeah, it got quite a lot of attention.
18:22:34 <adamw> and as this will affect the live image, it'd be nice to fix it.
18:22:35 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 720605 - An annoyance that would be nice to fix for beta, a fix is available
18:22:51 <adamw> ack
18:22:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 720605 - AcceptedNTH - An annoyance that would be nice to fix for beta, a fix is available
18:24:18 <tflink> #agreed - 720605 - AcceptedNTH - An annoyance that would be nice to fix for beta, a fix is available
18:24:40 <tflink> that's all the NTH I have on the list
18:24:47 <tflink> adamw: isn't there one that you wanted to go over?
18:24:56 <adamw> two..
18:25:03 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739179
18:25:05 <buggbot> Bug 739179: high, unspecified, ---, rstrode, NEW, plymouth -> X hand-off is muffed in F16 Beta RC1
18:25:07 <tflink> #chair adamw
18:25:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink
18:25:10 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739179
18:25:11 <buggbot> Bug 739179: high, unspecified, ---, rstrode, NEW, plymouth -> X hand-off is muffed in F16 Beta RC1
18:25:24 <adamw> this is...ehh, not sure if it's really worth taking, but i figured i'd mention it.
18:25:31 <tflink> #info plymouth -> X hand-off is muffed in F16 Beta RC1
18:25:59 <tflink> I'm on the fence on this one
18:26:00 <adamw> at first i thought it hit that criterion, but it doesn't, that's for non-X installs.
18:26:05 <cebbert> verifying the livecd before boot is also annoying
18:26:17 <adamw> if no-one's, like, 'ooh, that should be nth', i'm happy to drop it.
18:26:28 <tflink> yeah, it isn't working as intended but things work mostly as intended
18:26:47 <tflink> I think that the symptom is just having X on the wront VT, right?
18:26:59 <adamw> well, that and the fact that vt3 gets lost with the first X restart
18:27:02 <tflink> definitely +1 final NTH
18:27:04 <adamw> which could potentially cause trouble, but eh.
18:27:23 <jsmith> tflink: I agree with you there +1 to final NTH, but I'm on the fence re: Beta NTH
18:27:33 <adamw> final nth is fine by me.
18:27:42 <tflink> I'd be OK with beta NTH if we had a fix that could go into an RC
18:27:55 <adamw> whether we have a fix shouldn't really affect the status vote
18:27:57 <adamw> especially for nth
18:28:01 <tflink> but I'm worried about a fix causing more problems if it doesn't go in erarly enough
18:28:15 <tflink> early
18:28:27 <adamw> nth is a 'theoretical' state, remember: even if a bug is accepted as nth, it's a judgment call whether to *take* the fix or not
18:28:42 <tflink> ah, didn't realize that
18:28:51 <tflink> then I'm +1 beta NTH
18:28:53 <adamw> we aren't compelled to take nth fixes, only allowed to
18:29:05 <adamw> if a fix showed up but it looked heavy, we could choose not to take it.
18:29:15 <tflink> as long as it gets enough testing, I don't see any problems with pulling it into beta
18:29:30 <adamw> there's the implied testing issue
18:29:51 <adamw> if you touch something with quite a wide range of potential impacts close to release, it's very unlikely that _all_ cases will be exercised before release
18:30:09 <adamw> right now we can fairly confident there's no really big issues with vts, plymouth etc we don't already know about, as they've been in the current state for a while
18:30:28 <adamw> if we take a change to fix this, even if we do as much testing as we can in the next couple days, it's not going to cover all that same ground, probably...
18:30:41 <tflink> true
18:30:49 <adamw> i realize i'm arguing against my own proposal here, but meh. =)
18:30:55 <adamw> i think i'm kinda more comfortable with final, now.
18:31:57 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 739179 - AcceptedNTH for final, RejectedNTH for beta - The bug isn't that serious and it's a little close to beta release to take a fix for this now
18:32:08 <jsmith> ACK
18:32:46 <tflink> #agreed - 739179 - AcceptedNTH for final, RejectedNTH for beta - The bug isn't that serious and it's a little close to beta release to take a fix for this now
18:32:54 <tflink> I assume that the other one is 733086?
18:33:03 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733086
18:33:04 <buggbot> Bug 733086: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dwalsh, ON_QA, avcs on boot - rtc and /dev/live and systemd-tmpfiles
18:33:14 <tflink> #info avcs on boot - rtc and /dev/live and systemd-tmpfiles
18:33:36 <adamw> yes
18:33:39 <adamw> ping dwalsh
18:33:53 <adamw> so, this is by dwalsh's request: he thinks this fix should make beta
18:34:14 <adamw> it clears up a lot of the avcs we noticed happen during early boot (though not actually the one which causes the shell problem, i think)(
18:36:46 <tflink> was it causing problems other than the log messages?
18:37:29 <adamw> i don't know. i don't think it caused any we already know about, but dwalsh may know of some.
18:37:34 <dwalsh> Yes this version of libselinux will fix most of the labeling problems we are seeing.
18:37:47 <adamw> dwalsh: are you aware of any specific consequences of those mislabellings?
18:37:55 <dwalsh> adamw, It could very well cause other mislabeles.
18:38:23 * adamw is just a little hairy about touching selinux late
18:38:32 <tflink> same here
18:38:34 <dwalsh> No they seem to get cleared up.  But I would not be sure they would not cause other problems.
18:38:40 <pjones> tflink: by definition the messages are problems
18:38:57 <dwalsh> We have been using that libselinux in Rawhide for a week now.
18:39:04 <adamw> pjones: problems, sure - but the thing is, do they have any practical consequences the fixing of which would outweigh the inherent danger in poking selinux...
18:39:24 <tflink> pjones: true, I could have worded that better. I was more interested in other practical side-effects of the messages
18:39:35 <adamw> i have 2.1.5-4 on my desktop and it's fine. but then, my desktop didn't hit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738803 either.
18:39:36 <buggbot> Bug 738803: high, unspecified, ---, mgrepl, NEW, SELinux denial(s) prevent(s) gnome-shell from starting on F16 Beta RC1
18:39:37 <tflink> since the messages themselves are usually final material
18:40:07 <pjones> If we're going to want it for final, it really seems like not pulling it in when we could for beta is just asking for a lot of extra work to be done reporting things.
18:40:31 <adamw> so, we do have the consideration i mentioned for the lvm fixes in anaconda
18:40:35 <adamw> if we make it nth, we have flexibility
18:40:44 <adamw> we can pull it in for tc3 and drop it again if it causes problems
18:40:48 <tflink> that works for me
18:41:10 <adamw> at least any problems it causes *ought* to be pretty obvious.
18:41:14 <adamw> so...light +1 nth.
18:41:19 <dwalsh> adamw, I will work with you to fix the other problem, but I would like to see what happens when we build with the new libselinux.
18:41:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 733086 - AcceptedNTH - This will eventually be a final issue, pull in for tc3 and can back out the change if it causes any serious problems
18:42:39 <adamw> dwalsh: i'm quite liking the spin-kickstarts theory for the shell bug, though it still needs some investigation. i know where to go with it, though.
18:42:45 <adamw> ack
18:43:05 * tflink assumes implicit ack from pjones and dwalsh
18:43:13 <tflink> #agreed - 733086 - AcceptedNTH - This will eventually be a final issue, pull in for tc3 and can back out the change if it causes any serious problems
18:43:22 <tflink> ok, that's all of the proposed NTH
18:43:28 <pjones> not that there's any reason to give me a say on selinux issues ;)
18:43:52 <adamw> you show up, you get a say. =)
18:43:56 <dwalsh> pjones, Sure you sit across from me.  Your in the SELinux zone.
18:44:01 <adamw> (unless your name's reindl!)
18:44:09 <pjones> dwalsh: oh, I see.
18:44:30 <pjones> dwalsh: so you're saying selinux is communicable.  that's not the most encouraging thing ever.
18:44:33 <dwalsh> adamw, As soon as you have a livecd, I will play with it.
18:44:57 <adamw> dwalsh: what we need to do is build a live image with that stanza in the kickstart and one without - but no other differences - and confirm that's the trigger
18:45:06 <dwalsh> pjones, Pretty soon you will be hacking up AVCs
18:45:08 <adamw> then we need to confirm whether it really happens on dvd install, which it shouldn't, if the live kickstart is the problem
18:45:25 <adamw> those two things should narrow it down pretty well.
18:45:30 <tflink> #topic open discussion
18:45:36 <tflink> any other topics that were missed
18:45:46 <adamw> the artwork stuff
18:45:49 <adamw> somehow that didn't come up
18:45:51 <tflink> other than needing to go through the mosterous list of accepted beta NTH
18:45:54 <tflink> eh?
18:45:57 <adamw> oh, we're not doing acceptednths
18:45:58 <adamw> yeah
18:46:07 <adamw> so we could pull out one or two frm that list
18:46:08 * tflink wasn't proposing to do them now
18:46:21 <tflink> just noticing that it was large and probably should be gone through soon
18:46:51 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734169
18:46:52 <buggbot> Bug 734169: unspecified, unspecified, ---, pjones, NEW, Updated syslinux theme for Fedora 16
18:46:56 <adamw> this is the artwork one
18:47:06 <adamw> which was a huge swing and a miss for rc1: all the bootloader backgrounds are black
18:47:16 <tflink> I thought that someone was working on this
18:47:22 <pjones> no idea why this is actually assigned to syslinux (and thusly me)
18:47:26 <adamw> yeah, but it'd be nice to have an update
18:47:29 <pjones> since, you know, the theme doesn't go in that package.
18:47:41 <adamw> this specific bug is just a tracker anyway and all the interesting work is in the sub-bugs
18:47:59 <pjones> in that case it seems like it should be distribution or something
18:48:02 * tflink doesn't remember where the spash is
18:48:04 <pjones> but hey, whatever
18:48:08 * adamw is pinging mizmo to see if she can give an update
18:48:12 <adamw> pjones: yeah, it could be.
18:48:16 <pjones> tflink: -logos IIRC
18:48:48 <tflink> that sounds right
18:49:00 <adamw> if mizmo isn't around i don't know if we can do a whole lot, but it looks like there's a lorax update which may fix things for the dvd
18:49:11 <jsmith> So, here's the story
18:49:12 <adamw> i'll try and catch mizmo out of meeting to sync up on this one before we roll rc2/tc3
18:49:17 <adamw> ooh, jsmith has the goods
18:49:19 * jsmith just caught up on it
18:49:41 <jsmith> Due to sections of the grub2 code that are apparently incomplete, there will be no grub2 theme for F16
18:49:50 <jsmith> It will be solid black for GA
18:50:07 <pjones> do we have a bz on that?
18:50:14 <jsmith> (just heard that from spot in the past five minutes)
18:50:21 <pjones> because, uh, I hadn't been told that.  which is a bit odd.
18:50:49 <adamw> didn't we, like, have a theme all the way up to rc1?
18:50:58 <adamw> i'm pretty sure all the alpha and beta tcs had a background there.
18:51:03 <tflink> for grub?
18:51:11 <pjones> grub2, not grub.
18:51:11 <jsmith> adamw: There was a theme, but the text was over the top of the logos, as I recall
18:51:13 <adamw> i thought so. tc2 had the *wrong* one, but it had a theme.
18:51:28 <adamw> oh. so they can't fix that, so it's better to just go all black?
18:51:33 <tflink> adamw: you're talking about the syslinux splash, I think that jsmith is talking about grub2
18:51:34 <jsmith> Or maybe that was just syslinux
18:51:35 <tflink> separate issues
18:51:45 <adamw> tflink: true.
18:51:59 <adamw> jsmith: that sounds like syslinux, i think
18:52:05 <pjones> seriously, do we have a bz on this?  If not we need one with specifics of what's not working yet.
18:52:07 <jsmith> adamw: Yeah, I was confusing the two
18:52:29 <pjones> like, in the past.
18:53:20 <jsmith> pjones: I'm asking, but haven't seen a response yet
18:53:54 <adamw> pjones: i think the three sub-bugs of the tracker are supposed to be tracking this
18:54:46 <tflink> adamw: a lorax update for syslinux was submitted today
18:54:54 <pjones> adamw: that's well and good, but none of those have anything to do with what I'm asking
18:55:19 <pjones> adamw: if there is grub2 functionality for theming that does not work, I need to know what it is.
18:56:01 <tflink> I realize that it sounds like I'm passing the buck here, but it sounds like spot would be the one to ask
18:56:04 <adamw> pjon; ah, i see
18:56:15 <tflink> this is the first I've heard of the grub2 splash issue
18:56:18 <adamw> me too
18:56:39 <jsmith> I only heard about it a couple of days ago, but had to dig to find more information
18:56:59 <tflink> #action tflink or adamw - investigate potential grub2 splash issue, spot may have more information
18:57:07 <pjones> also seems really suspect to me - other distros are already theming it successfully
18:58:09 <tflink> either way, we don't have enough information to do anything about it ATM
18:58:34 <tflink> it needs more investigation and possibly bugs filed
18:59:27 <tflink> but getting back to the topic at hand, it sounds like there are new builds available to update the syslinux splash
18:59:33 <tflink> which should be pulled into tc3
18:59:55 <tflink> so I think that we're just about set on the syslinux theme bugs for beta (live, dvd, product name)
19:00:04 <adamw> right.
19:00:12 <tflink> for now anyways
19:00:21 <adamw> and in future, we really could do with the people who like to twiddle artwork doing it earlier, and, y'know, cluefully. and beans.
19:00:59 <tflink> #action tflink to spin test boot.iso to test new syslinux theme
19:01:12 <tflink> agreed
19:01:34 <tflink> which I believe brings us back to ...
19:01:39 <adamw> since it seems like we've wound up here for a couple of releases now - design team wanting to land artwork changes inexplicably late, everyone else confused
19:01:48 <tflink> #topic open discussion
19:02:13 <adamw> quick note that info for 738964 (the new potential blocker we punted on earlier) just landed
19:02:22 <adamw> for anaconda folks to look at
19:02:37 <tflink> enough to look at right now?
19:02:47 <adamw> i think it needs anaconda priests to interpret it.
19:02:53 <adamw> i never know what the hell i'm looking at in anaconda logs.
19:03:19 <pjones> there's really nothing magical going on there
19:03:32 <tflink> #info logs from 738964 have been added, waiting for analysis
19:03:49 <adamw> pjones: sure, just my inadequate comprehension capabilities =)
19:03:59 <tflink> unless there are any other topics to bring up, I think that we're done here
19:04:01 <adamw> yeah
19:04:11 <adamw> we can vote on 738964 async when we have an interpretation
19:04:20 <tflink> #info next blocker bug meeting 2011-09-23 @ 17:00 UTC
19:04:36 * tflink sets fuse for 2 minutes
19:05:20 <cebbert> this recording will self-destruct in two minutes?
19:05:34 <tflink> just the recording?
19:05:41 <tflink> might be the whole channel
19:05:49 * tflink prepares to run
19:06:00 * adamw jumps in slow-motion, arms spread wide
19:06:14 <tflink> ok, thanks everyone!
19:06:24 <tflink> #endmeeting