16:01:09 <tflink> #startmeeting f19alpha-blocker-review-5 16:01:09 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 8 16:01:09 2013 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:09 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:10 <tflink> #meetingname f19alpha-blocker-review-5 16:01:10 <tflink> #topic Roll Call 16:01:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19alpha-blocker-review-5' 16:01:16 <tflink> #chair kparal adamw 16:01:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink 16:01:54 * kparal bacon 16:02:17 * jreznik is here, still hungry, no bacon love 16:02:20 * satellit listening 16:02:31 * mkrizek here 16:05:02 * brunowolff is here 16:05:04 <tflink> any volunteers for secretary duty? 16:05:38 <adamw> sure 16:05:49 <tflink> adamw: thanks 16:06:07 <tflink> looks like we have enough people, let's get started 16:06:13 <tflink> #topic Introduction 16:06:26 <tflink> Why are we here? 16:06:26 <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. 16:06:32 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:06:32 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:06:41 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:06:41 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:06:48 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:06:48 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:06:53 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have: 16:07:02 <tflink> #info 3 Proposed Blockers 16:07:02 <tflink> #info 9 Accepted Blockers 16:07:02 <tflink> #info 11 Proposed Freeze Exceptions 16:07:02 <tflink> #info 4 Accepted Freeze Exceptions 16:07:23 <tflink> if there are no objections, we'll start with the proposed blockers 16:08:17 <tflink> #topic (888307) Inserting an F18 DVD does not automatically add the DVD repo to running gnome3 installation 16:08:20 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888307 16:08:22 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-settings-daemon, NEW 16:08:52 <tflink> already -2 blocker from votes in bug 16:08:57 <adamw> -1 blocker, I think satellit misread the criterion. 16:09:21 <tflink> the issue, as described here, is that you can't use the DVD as a repo _after_ installation 16:09:25 <tflink> also -1 16:09:27 <satellit> can this be changed to nice to have? 16:09:40 <mkrizek> -1 16:09:52 <satellit> it is important for sneaker-net non network install 16:10:05 <adamw> maybe for final, it really doesn't seem significant enough for alpha or beta 16:10:12 <satellit> ok 16:10:56 <adamw> anyone +1 for alpha fe? 16:11:23 <kparal> no 16:11:24 <tflink> proposed #agreed 888307 - RejectedBlocker - This does not violate any alpha release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha 16:11:31 <kparal> ack 16:11:36 <mkrizek> ack 16:11:37 <adamw> ack 16:11:38 <tflink> I'd probably be -1 this late in freeze 16:11:49 <tflink> #agreed 888307 - RejectedBlocker - This does not violate any alpha release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha 16:12:01 <tflink> #topic (946964) after default install of 19 Alpha TC3 in KVM, can't log in from gdm 16:12:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946964 16:12:07 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW 16:12:30 <robatino> no one else seems to see it. i offered to submit logs, no one's taken me up on it 16:13:17 <adamw> well, you should just attach them, you don't need permission :) 16:13:27 <tflink> either way, I'm starting to think -1 blocker due to few people hitting it - it can be resubmitted if it turns out to be a bigger problem 16:13:29 <robatino> but i don't know which ones are relevant 16:13:32 <adamw> but yeah, as no-one else seems to be seeing this and we've had it for a couple of weeks now, maybe time to -1 it as system-specific? 16:13:34 <adamw> right 16:14:23 <robatino> i'm okay with -1 if no one else sees it 16:14:42 <kparal> robatino: can you try to increase the RAM? 16:14:52 <robatino> i tried 2 GiB, no difference 16:15:06 <robatino> (normally i use the default 1 GiB) 16:15:13 <adamw> i'm -1, though it'd be nice to figure this one out 16:15:46 <akshayvyas> -1 here.....will reopen if some one noticed ?? 16:15:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed 946964 - RejectedBlocker - While this has the potential to be a release blocking bug, it appears to be somewhat system specific at the moment and not widespread enough to justify release blocking status. Please re-propose as a blocker if it turns out to be more severe or widespread. 16:16:24 <adamw> ack 16:16:26 <jreznik> ack 16:16:26 <akshayvyas> ack 16:16:27 <mkrizek> ack 16:16:50 <kparal> ack 16:16:51 <robatino> i did attach a section of /var/log/messages in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946964#c9 16:16:51 <tflink> #agreed 946964 - RejectedBlocker - While this has the potential to be a release blocking bug, it appears to be somewhat system specific at the moment and not widespread enough to justify release blocking status. Please re-propose as a blocker if it turns out to be more severe or widespread. 16:17:00 <tflink> #topic (949315) KDM greeter fails with missing Spherical Cow theme files 16:17:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949315 16:17:06 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, spherical-cow-kde-theme, NEW 16:17:46 <adamw> this looks to be related to some KDE stuff in updates-testing 16:17:47 <adamw> so -1 16:17:56 <tflink> it sounds like nobody else is seeing this 16:17:56 <adamw> though it'd be good to figure out what's borked, obviously 16:17:58 <tflink> -1 16:18:09 <mkrizek> actually it seems to be fixed in updates-testing already 16:18:16 <adamw> ah, that'd explain the difference in results 16:18:22 <akshayvyas> -1 16:18:23 <kparal> -1 16:18:27 <mkrizek> -1 16:18:28 <jreznik> -1 16:19:13 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949315 - RejectedBlocker - This appears to be system/site specific or it has already been fixed in F19 updates-testing. Either way, it does not warrant release blocking status at this time and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha. 16:19:18 <adamw> ack 16:19:19 <tflink> ack/nak/patch? 16:19:23 <jreznik> ack 16:19:31 <mkrizek> ack 16:19:55 <tflink> #agreed 949315 - RejectedBlocker - This appears to be system/site specific or it has already been fixed in F19 updates-testing. Either way, it does not warrant release blocking status at this time and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha. 16:19:55 <akshayvyas> ack 16:20:14 <kparal> ack 16:20:25 <tflink> OK, that's all the proposed blockers on my list - on to the proposed FE 16:21:34 <adamw> do the ones in MODIFIED or better first 16:22:32 <tflink> probably a good plan, give me a minute to reorganize my list 16:23:42 <tflink> #topic (947261) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'memInstalled' (anaconda fails to boot with 512mb ram in TEXT MODE) 16:23:46 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947261 16:23:48 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, MODIFIED 16:24:35 <tflink> +1 16:24:36 <adamw> it'd be nice if they'd provide a bit more detail 16:24:38 <adamw> but i guess +1 16:24:44 <adamw> lemme see if i can find the patch 16:25:02 <tflink> it should be a pretty simple patch 16:25:09 <adamw> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2013-April/003640.html 16:25:12 <adamw> yeah, it's a one-liner 16:25:16 <tflink> I would be surprised if it was complicated, anyways 16:25:17 <adamw> seems pretty restricted 16:25:39 <adamw> so yeah, +1. 16:25:45 <tflink> I don't see how that could make things worse 16:26:44 <adamw> your failure of vision astounds me 16:26:51 <adamw> any other votes? 16:27:04 <adamw> just imagine if blivet were in fact a hungry, hungry raptor 16:27:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed 947261 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now 16:27:28 <kparal> ack 16:27:46 <tflink> well, I don't see how it could make things worse unless it either doesn't build or blows up in all cases - either way, we'd figure it out pretty quick 16:27:50 <adamw> ack 16:28:02 <brunowolff> It seems safe to apply. The replacement variable is already being used, so it isn't likely to cause a new problem. 16:28:04 <tflink> famous last words 16:28:11 <adamw> you'll figure it out pretty quick when the hungry, hungry raptor emerges from your monitor, but it won't help 16:28:25 <tflink> that'd be a neat trick 16:28:47 <tflink> anyhow, any more ack? 16:29:18 <adamw> don't make me get out the moustache 16:29:20 <tflink> #agreed 947261 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now 16:29:38 <tflink> adamw: new quote, methinks 16:29:41 <brunowolff> Accepted FE 16:29:55 <tflink> brunowolff: oh, right 16:29:56 <tflink> whoops 16:29:59 <tflink> #undo 16:29:59 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x277dc210> 16:30:21 <tflink> #agreed 947261 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now 16:30:28 <adamw> ack 16:30:29 <brunowolff> ack 16:30:32 <kparal> that shows how much we read it :) 16:30:33 <adamw> er, too much ack! 16:30:50 <tflink> #topic (949323) Gnome Initial Setup does not offer opportunity to create non-root Administrator 16:30:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949323 16:30:55 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, MODIFIED 16:31:43 <kparal> this bug should be probably closed? 16:32:15 <kparal> as notabug 16:32:50 <brunowolff> +1 notabug 16:32:59 <adamw> well 16:33:14 <adamw> isn't admin status for PolicyKit different from just being in wheel? did we check g-i-s does that too? 16:33:17 * adamw tries to remember 16:33:18 <tflink> -1 FE, let devs and reporters figure out the rest 16:33:23 <adamw> right, that seems safe 16:33:46 <kparal> hmm, there appears to be groups 'wheel' and 'adm' 16:33:57 <kparal> wheel is probably for sudo and adm for PK? 16:34:12 <adamw> no 16:34:29 <adamw> adm is something else, i forget what, but not to do with PK. but i'll look into it outside of the meeting 16:34:39 <kparal> -1 anyway 16:34:42 <jreznik> -1 FE now 16:34:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949323 - RejectedFreezeException - This appears to have been at least partially by design and not severe enough to justify pulling past F19 alpha freeze. Thus, it is rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha 16:35:19 <jreznik> and I have to admit - I don't like solution like - let's move it to kickstart - not sure why one checkbox is such problem... 16:35:29 <jreznik> ack 16:35:38 <kparal> ack 16:36:17 <tflink> #agreed 949323 - RejectedFreezeException - This appears to have been at least partially by design and not severe enough to justify pulling past F19 alpha freeze. Thus, it is rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha 16:36:27 <tflink> #topic (949106) libreoffice-core drags in both openjdk 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 16:36:30 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949106 16:36:33 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libreoffice, ON_QA 16:37:45 <tflink> I'd be OK with FE on this for getting the desktop spin size down 16:37:55 <adamw> yeah, and it might help get the DVD under actual DVD size too 16:37:58 <adamw> they seem like wins 16:38:23 <kparal> +1 16:38:33 <adamw> the fix looks safe too 16:38:34 <adamw> +1 16:38:58 <brunowolff> +1 FE 16:39:20 <jreznik> +1 FE, seems ok 16:40:33 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949106 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix reduces the size of the desktop spin to be properly sized - while not an F19 alpha release criterion, would be good to fix before alpha. 16:40:35 <akshayvyas> +1 FE 16:40:48 <jreznik> ack 16:40:49 <adamw> ack 16:40:49 <akshayvyas> ack 16:41:53 <kparal> ack 16:42:23 <tflink> #agreed 949106 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix reduces the size of the desktop spin to be properly sized - while not an F19 alpha release criterion, would be good to fix before alpha. 16:42:35 <tflink> #topic (924425) Assertion failed on ppc64: g_object_class_install_property: assertion `pspec->flags & (G_PARAM_READABLE | G_PARAM_WRITABLE)' failed 16:42:38 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425 16:42:41 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, pygobject3, ON_QA 16:42:50 <tflink> so this is a "fe because it blocks secondary arch" 16:43:13 <kparal> secondary arches are affected by the freeze? 16:43:17 <jreznik> as I commented it - I'm generally ok with it 16:43:27 <jreznik> kparal: in the way how the release is done, yes 16:43:34 <tflink> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425#c16 16:43:36 <jreznik> kparal: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425#c16 16:43:53 <jreznik> tflink: you were faster! 16:44:00 <tflink> jreznik: just barely 16:44:13 <adamw> i guess i'm okay with it too, but i always figured secondary arches could pull different packages into their pre-release builds... 16:44:35 <tflink> while I'm a little wary about pygobject fixes this late, it sounds relatively isolated 16:45:02 <adamw> about sums up how I feel 16:45:51 * jreznik would like to see more discussion on how we should handle secondary architectures and would like to see ideally no delays between primary and secondary archs releases... 16:46:10 <jreznik> pygobject is bug thing on the other hand 16:46:15 <jreznik> s/bug/big 16:47:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924425 - AcceptedFreezeException - While it does not affect PA, it seems to be a relatively small and isolated fix that is required for ppc/s390 to build pygobject. 16:47:51 <adamw> ack 16:48:05 <kparal> ack 16:48:13 <jreznik> ack (and afk for a sec, call of nature) 16:48:15 <brunowolff> ack 16:48:53 <tflink> #agreed 924425 - AcceptedFreezeException - While it does not affect PA, it seems to be a relatively small and isolated fix that is required for ppc/s390 to build pygobject. 16:49:00 <tflink> #topic (928927) FTBFS: python-pillow-2.0.0 on ppc64 16:49:00 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928927 16:49:00 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-pillow, ON_QA 16:49:14 <adamw> ditto above 16:50:35 <tflink> this is a bit larger fix, though 16:50:43 <tflink> what all needs python-pillow? 16:51:19 <adamw> it's the new python imaging library i think 16:51:22 <adamw> so probably lots of stuff 16:51:32 <jreznik> hmm, that patch scares me 16:51:37 <tflink> yeah, same here 16:51:53 <tflink> even if it has been submitted upstream 16:52:05 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928927#c11 seemed to suggest we could just tag a different build? 16:52:10 <adamw> i'm a bit confused by this one 16:52:41 <adamw> oh, i see, they had a workaround then there's a fix 16:52:50 <adamw> i'm kinda inclined to take the workaround if we can still do that 16:53:02 <tflink> I think I'm -1 on this without more testing 16:53:10 <adamw> i'd be +1 to the simple workaround, -1 to the big patch 16:53:36 <jreznik> +1 simple workaround, definitely -1 for the big one 16:53:52 <tflink> yeah, same here 16:55:46 <adamw> we can do that vote. i can explain in a bug comment. 16:56:06 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928927 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this would obviously be good to fix for ppc/s390, the large patch was deemed too risky to take this late in freeze and IS NOT part of the FreezeException. The workaround build w/o the test suite would be considered for inclusion after freeze 16:57:22 <adamw> ack 16:57:42 <jreznik> I can go with it, ack (trying to find sandro or dan but no success) 16:58:31 <tflink> #agreed 928927 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this would obviously be good to fix for ppc/s390, the large patch was deemed too risky to take this late in freeze and IS NOT part of the FreezeException. The workaround build w/o the test suite would be considered for inclusion after freeze 16:59:41 <tflink> that's all the proposed FE I'm seeing which are MODIFIED+ 16:59:56 <tflink> there are 2 POSTs for systemd but the rest are NEW 17:00:42 <adamw> we can leave those for wednesday i guess 17:00:56 <jreznik> +1 17:01:13 * kparal 's laptop has a tendency to shut down unasked 17:01:18 * kparal back 17:01:58 <tflink> they sound like things that might be worth taking but I'm not sure about taking systemd builds days before go/no-go 17:02:19 <tflink> especially for things that sound as if they could be fixed post-install 17:02:44 <tflink> is the general consensus to skip the POST and NEW proposed FEs? 17:03:22 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949525 seems fix-worthy... 17:03:44 <tflink> yeah, that's the one I was looking at 17:03:57 <adamw> i'd be +1 to that. 17:04:00 <tflink> it could be fixed with an update, though 17:04:16 <tflink> and it does involve hacking at systemd days before go/no-go 17:05:02 <tflink> I'd be OK with just that patch 17:05:17 <tflink> but then again, my C-fu isn't the greatest 17:05:32 <tflink> #topic (949525) after net install f19 systemd ignores LANG=ja_JP.UTF-8 and runs in LANG=C locale 17:05:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949525 17:05:38 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, POST 17:05:41 <adamw> can it really be entirely fixed with an update? 17:05:56 <tflink> why wouldn't an update work? 17:06:07 <tflink> it looks like the bug is in root switching 17:06:11 <adamw> well, i guess it's a semantic question 17:06:14 <tflink> the fix, anyways 17:06:20 <adamw> an update would work, but you'd experience the bug at first install. eh. 17:06:23 <adamw> maybe an update is okay for alpha 17:06:28 * jreznik is more inclined to -1 now... 17:06:30 <adamw> i guess -1 on second thoughts 17:07:07 <tflink> yeah, i wouldn't be as OK with -1 on this for final 17:07:26 <tflink> but if I understand this properly, it could be fixed with a zero-day 17:07:40 <tflink> the only tough part would be lives but IIRC, those are all english anyways 17:07:52 <jreznik> yep 17:09:15 * kparal is still opening that bug 17:09:35 <adamw> -1 then? 17:09:47 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949525 - RejectedFreezeException - While an annoyance, this bug could be fixed with a zero-day update and is only seen post-install. Given the fixability, the fact that this is alpha and the risk of taking a systemd fix this late in freeze, rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha 17:09:54 * tflink was writing a novel 17:09:57 <tflink> :) 17:10:04 <adamw> ack 17:10:17 <jreznik> ack, and nobel prize for literature 17:10:37 * spstarr should just make sure I'm in here always 17:10:39 <brunowolff> ask 17:10:43 <tflink> #agreed 949525 - RejectedFreezeException - While an annoyance, this bug could be fixed with a zero-day update and is only seen post-install. Given the fixability, the fact that this is alpha and the risk of taking a systemd fix this late in freeze, rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha 17:11:08 <tflink> OK, I think that's all of the FEs we're going to review today 17:11:28 <tflink> on to non-VERIFIED accepted blockers 17:11:39 <tflink> #topic (929403) initial-setup-graphical.service is not enabled by default, so initial-setup does not run after install (KDE, LXDE, Xfce...) 17:11:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929403 17:11:45 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, initial-setup, MODIFIED 17:12:17 <spstarr> that one i trigger no firstboot starting up for KDE 17:12:35 <tflink> methinks this should be ON_QA 17:12:38 <adamw> this is mostly under control now, we just need to take the new initial-setup/systemd update and it should be good. hope it works, of courser. 17:12:50 <adamw> tflink: it goes to ON_QA when the update actually goes to repos. 17:12:54 <jreznik> it's already merged in bodhi 17:12:55 <tflink> bah, it is 17:13:14 <tflink> it seems that bodhi changes are usually scheduled during blocker review meetings 17:13:30 <tflink> #info needs testing, will be included in TC6/RC1 17:13:58 <tflink> #info moved to ON_QA during the meeting 17:14:02 <tflink> #topic (948615) Konqueror fails QA:Testcase_Desktop_Browser -- fails to allow access to FAS2 even with valid credentials 17:14:02 <spstarr> I'll test that w/ KDE when thats composed 17:14:05 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948615 17:14:08 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, kde-baseapps, ON_QA 17:14:36 <tflink> sounds like this can be moved to VERIFIED? 17:15:04 <tflink> #info this has been reported to be fixed with TC5 17:15:11 <adamw> looks that way 17:15:22 <tflink> #info move to VERIFIED 17:15:40 <tflink> mkrizek isn't here anymore 17:15:42 <jreznik> seems like and I agree with adamw that such test case could show such bug... 17:16:14 <tflink> oh, this isn't in TC5 17:16:26 <tflink> needs to be pulled in to TC6/RC1 17:16:53 <tflink> #info still needs to be pulled into TC6/RC1 17:17:22 <adamw> right. 17:17:26 <tflink> anything else on this? 17:18:05 * tflink assumes not 17:18:09 <tflink> #topic (926916) anaconda can't report traceback to bugzilla 17:18:09 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926916 17:18:09 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, libreport, ON_QA 17:18:22 <adamw> will be in TC6, just needs testing 17:18:23 <tflink> #info fix is ready for testing, waiting on TC6/RC1 17:18:27 <adamw> don't think we can really test it outside of a compose 17:18:30 <tflink> nope 17:18:38 <tflink> unless we do a smoke build 17:19:00 <tflink> it has to be baked into the install media, though 17:19:20 <adamw> yeah. 17:19:33 <adamw> don't do a smoke, i'll just bug nirik into doing it or something :P 17:19:40 <tflink> ok 17:19:42 * adamw trying to keep tflink out of the smoke trap 17:20:20 <tflink> I still haven't gotten set up for F19 smokes, so it would take me a while to do that anyways 17:20:53 <tflink> anyhow, that's all of the non-VERIFIED accepted blockers 17:20:57 <tflink> time for ... 17:21:02 <tflink> #topic Open Floor 17:21:09 <tflink> Anything else which needs to be discussed? 17:21:33 <kparal> have we discussed 928279? 17:21:38 <jreznik> no 17:21:47 <kparal> we should 17:21:53 <jreznik> the most important now 17:22:28 <tflink> oh, I missed one 17:22:31 <tflink> whoops 17:22:34 <tflink> #undo 17:22:34 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x2a74a590> 17:22:44 <tflink> #topic (928279) anaconda doesn't start on LiveCD (in Gnome) 17:22:44 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928279 17:22:44 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED 17:23:32 <kparal> tl;dr: it seems that anaconda won't start if you get a dhcp hostname after gdm/kdm starts 17:23:38 <kparal> since xhost auth won't work 17:23:54 <adamw> i'd be -1 per the existing bug discussion 17:23:59 <adamw> e.g https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679486#c40 17:24:12 <kparal> dhcp hostnames, as stated in 679486, are mostly used in corporate networks and in direct connections to ISV 17:24:34 * tflink uses dhcp hostnames in his home network 17:24:37 <kparal> so the number of affected people should be limited, and there are easy workarounds 17:24:58 <kparal> 1) start without a network -or- 2) use xhost+ -or- 3) use sudo liveinst 17:25:26 <tflink> sounds -1 blocker, +1 CommonBugs to me 17:25:33 <adamw> at least for alpha, yeah 17:25:34 <tflink> for alpha, anyways 17:25:44 <adamw> possibly FE depending on the fix 17:25:49 <adamw> shall we mark it as a dupe of the old bug? 17:25:56 <jreznik> -1 blocker, +1 FE (as fix would be nice, it's shame we have it from F15 and I closed it as EOL...), +1 CommonBugs 17:25:59 <randomuser> wouldn't that include people who boot the liveimage, then put in their wireless network password? 17:26:31 <kparal> -1 Alpha. and I say we should propose it as Final blocker right away 17:26:54 <jreznik> adamw: there's a lot of info in the old bug, I'd merge it and reopen 17:27:06 <kparal> although the impact is limited but it's still not pretty 17:27:20 <adamw> randomuser: only if their hostname is then changed based on the DHCP response 17:27:37 <kparal> jreznik: I reopened it 17:27:47 * randomuser nods consideringly 17:27:53 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19. 17:27:56 <kparal> jreznik: feel free to dupe one or the other if you wish 17:27:59 <adamw> ack 17:28:00 <adamw> er 17:28:01 <adamw> patch 17:28:14 <adamw> close as dupe of 679486 and apply statuses to that bug 17:28:32 <jreznik> kparal: ah! and there's another one, I'll close it too (f18 korora one) 17:29:07 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. Close this particular bug as a dupe of #679486 and transfer all statuses to that bug. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19. 17:29:12 <adamw> ack 17:29:33 <kparal> ack 17:29:51 <jreznik> ack 17:29:53 <tflink> #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. Close this particular bug as a dupe of #679486 and transfer all statuses to that bug. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19. 17:30:07 <tflink> did I miss any others from the list? 17:30:15 <smooge> Did you guys discuss Bug 949122? I don't see it on the blocker list. It needs a new kernel so install will work with some EFI boxes. 17:30:47 <smooge> can wait til Open Floor to discuss it 17:31:03 <kparal> it's not proposed as a blocker 17:31:09 <kparal> that's why it's not on the list 17:31:56 <smooge> ah I thought I had done that on my original bug, but I don't think I did correctly 17:32:04 <tflink> not enough info to make a blocker judgement, I think 17:32:23 <kparal> tflink: change topic? 17:32:59 <kparal> smooge: did pjones say this should affect all UEFI machines, or just Samsung ones? 17:33:09 <smooge> this isn't a Samsung box I am seeing it on 17:33:31 <smooge> so I am expecting more than Samsung.. but I don't know how manyh 17:33:32 <tflink> #topic (949122) Anaconda crashes on UEFI install [Anaconda 19 AlphaTC5] 17:33:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949122 17:33:37 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:33:38 <adamw> oh, i recall discussion of that one 17:33:46 <kparal> we can try to verify tomorrow, now that we know how to work around the hostname bug 17:33:56 <kparal> on a Asus board 17:33:59 <tflink> do we have a fix right now? 17:34:00 <adamw> so the fix for the samsung bug causes problems on some other systems 17:34:30 <adamw> basically a false positive on the check for whether the efivars space is full 17:35:00 <kparal> smooge: please put AlphaBlocker in the Blocks: field and we will discuss it on wednesday. in that time we might have more information 17:35:06 <tflink> if we don't have a fix for this right now, I'd say leave it for wednesday 17:35:19 <tflink> and ask for more information on severity and # of affected systems 17:35:58 <adamw> we don't have an absolute number, but pjones thinks it may affect quite a few uefi systems 17:36:02 <tflink> #info this needs more information and a proper proposal 17:36:12 <tflink> #info will discuss at the next blocker review meeting 17:36:22 <tflink> anything else? 17:36:41 <tflink> for this bug, I mean 17:37:11 <smooge> done 17:37:24 <tflink> then it's time for ... 17:37:24 <smooge> not from me. Tell me what I need to do to get you info 17:37:28 <tflink> #topic Open Floor 17:38:02 <tflink> smooge: mostly what the fix is, how many systems we suspect would be affected 17:38:05 <smooge> ok I am not affected by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928228 anymore. Do I close it or someone else 17:38:21 <adamw> it's already closed. 17:38:31 <smooge> oops. stupid window 17:38:39 <smooge> I thought I was opening all my open bugs 17:39:03 <smooge> ok how about this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868421 .. put it in for a BetaBlocker? 17:39:43 <kparal> I tried to have it as a F17 final blocker IIRC 17:39:49 <kparal> rejected 17:39:58 <tflink> kparal: I thought it was more F18+ 17:40:02 <adamw> if we have to discuss that bug one more time i'll shoot someone 17:40:03 <adamw> :LP 17:40:08 <kparal> ah, F18 17:40:09 <adamw> could someone just fix the damn thing? 17:40:16 <tflink> +100 17:40:27 <tflink> this bug annoys me 17:40:56 <kparal> just ask zodbot to ping harald every 10 minutes "is it fixed yet?" 17:41:02 <adamw> a definite plan 17:41:06 <smooge> I know it doesn't fit Alpha.. so would Beta be good? 17:41:13 <kparal> actually, that would be a cool feature of zodbot 17:41:18 <kparal> massively used 17:41:24 <adamw> i don't really see that we can possibly make it a beta blocker if we rejected it for final for f18 17:41:28 <adamw> at max we can re-consider final blocker 17:41:29 <smooge> nah he would just ignore zodbot like he ignores this blog 17:41:38 * jreznik will start pinging kparal every 1 minute, just to test this feature 17:41:41 <tflink> smooge: you could try but if it failed F18 final blocker, I don't see how it would make it as f19 beta 17:41:48 <kparal> jreznik: :P 17:42:06 <smooge> adamw, tflink because you guys re-evaluate what meets alpha/beta/final every time 17:42:12 <adamw> we try not to. 17:42:20 <adamw> half the point of having a process is to be consistent. 17:42:23 <smooge> AND you didn't make it final because you were promised a post release fix which never came up. 17:42:46 <smooge> so I am claiming "Pants on fire" urgency 17:42:48 * kparal mutters it was to be expected 17:42:50 <adamw> i don't know if we were promised anything, we just said that it _can_ be fixed with a post-release update, which is an important consideration when deciding whether a bug is a blocker 17:43:35 <adamw> but anyway, we can't stop you proposing it as whatever you like, it's up to you 17:43:48 <adamw> come with a decent grounding in the criteria or expect pain, though ;) 17:44:15 <kparal> that's easy, the system must boot to firstboot criterion ;) 17:44:34 <tflink> kparal: workaround is watch for the prompt 17:44:43 <jreznik> and as we don't have firsboot anymore but initial-setup, no problem 17:44:50 <jreznik> let's move guys, time to go home :) 17:44:54 <tflink> but I don't want to have this discussion now 17:44:54 <smooge> I am going to go with RHEL-7 blocker 17:45:04 <kparal> jreznik: we are, except for you :) 17:45:08 <tflink> if there's nothing else, I'm going to set the fuze 17:45:11 <adamw> as that doesn't involve me, i'm all in favour of it 17:45:14 <tflink> fuse even 17:45:28 <kparal> smooge: thumbs up 17:45:35 <jreznik> ok, so looks like we are clear for RC request, aren't we? 17:46:17 <adamw> mostly. 17:47:02 * adamw will bug nirik 17:47:10 <tflink> either way, nothing else for the meeting? 17:47:18 <jreznik> adamw: thanks 17:47:50 <smooge> thank you guys. 17:47:58 * tflink sets fuse for [0,5] minutes 17:48:31 <tflink> #info the next F19 Alpha Blocker Review Meeting will be on 2012-04-08 @ 16:00 UTC 17:49:24 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone! 17:49:33 * tflink will send out minutes shortly 17:49:35 <jreznik> thanks tflink! 17:49:37 <robatino> your time is off 17:49:37 <tflink> #endmeeting