<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:20
!startmeeting F41-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:21
Meeting started at 2024-09-09 16:01:20 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:21
The Meeting name is 'F41-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:24
!topic Roll Call
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:02:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:48
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:03:05
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:06
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:03:07
but again
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:11
who's around for blocker funtimes
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:03:18
!hi
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:03:18
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:18
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:19
Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:03:19
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:21
Daniel Milnes (thebeanogamer) - he / him / his
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:03:27
I'm "unverified" today, no idea what "other device" it wants me to verify with
<@pboy:fedora.im>
16:03:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:42
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:02
Brandon Nielsen: any other client you have set up which supports verification...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:04:16
It only shows this session
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:17
might be another client on the same device, rather than a different device
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:21
huh. matrix!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:04:50
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:04:51
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:04:55
Finally in a decent timezone for these, and all it took was flying half way round the world
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:33
easy fix!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:18
we really need to figure out a way to get *all* of kamil to be in the same place at once sometimes
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:07:40
Kids have eaten him half the way already.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:39
alrighty, let's get rolling...boilerplate alert
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:43
first, a lil boilerplate experiment
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:50
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:50
!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.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:50
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:55
oooo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:11
aaaaa
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:27
i owe somebody at meetbot hq a beer
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:47
okay, so
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:49
!info for Beta, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:01
!info 8 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:01
!info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:01
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:01
!info 3 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:01
!info 1 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:24
who wants to secretarialize?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:10:35
me, again, I am starting to enjoy it! :D
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:10:56
(just disclaimer, I'll be afk for about 5 minutes in about 20 minutes)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:49
!info František Zatloukal will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:54
alrighty, let's get going with:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:57
!topic Proposed Beta blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:39
!topic (2309697) dnf plugins not handled in the ugprade process
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:39
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309697
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:39
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1640
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:39
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-2) (+nixuser, +tablepc, +nielsenb, -lruzicka, -sgallagh)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:39
!info Proposed Blocker, dnf5, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:48
man i'm loving this.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:50
alright
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:13:27
small wins are important on a Monday
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:46
i don't really see this as a beta blocker, and i don't see any criteria cited
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:14:13
I don't fully understand the issue.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:14:49
If there is a plugins-core installed for dnf4, shouldn't we expected the dnf5 equivalent to be pulled in?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:06
It may not be a 1:1 match, but at least _some_ of the plugins should transfer
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:10
if you have a given plugin working with dnf4, then you upgrade to dnf5, you won't necessarily have that plugin working any more
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:15:19
The criterion cited is basically that upgrades should match a freshly installed package set, plus whatever else you had added on your prior system (minus Obsoletes:)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:15:26
I don't think this is in violation of that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:27
i think the bug is genuine and it is reasonable to expect the best replacement we can manage, but i don't think that blocks the beta release.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:39
Stephen Gallagher: the criterion does not say that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:01
waut
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:08
it does. but why? it's not meant to say that. mmmmmf
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:11
well, maynbe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:21
i need to look into the history there
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:16:37
I assume the intent there is to prevent us from installing e.g. Linux Mint on an upgrade
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:16:59
Maybe it shouldn't say that, but it do
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:17:06
Or something else wildly unrelated to their current setup
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:07
as i recall it, the criterion is intended specifically *not* to apply to post-install customizations, because we cannot possibly guarantee upgrade for arbitrary package sets, we do not have the testing or dev resources
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:16
so we intentionally guaranteed only that upgrades of clean default install will work
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:26
i *suspect* that text has been added by someone without going through review, but i need to check
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:17:43
Either way, I still don't think this violates that.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:17:51
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:17:52
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:53
yeah, fair point, it's a sidebar
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:18:09
I guess my reading of the bug is, it does
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:18:24
There's a plugins core for both dnf4 and 5, and you don't get it on upgrade to 5
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:18:37
It may not be 1:1, but it still feels to me like you should get it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:54
Stephen Gallagher: j'accuse - https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria&diff=prev&oldid=391837
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:19:16
You could argue it's a new thing, so not technically a "package the user previously had", and I would accept that
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:19:23
Because I really don't _want_ to block on this
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:19:25
My readings is that there are no DNF5 equivalents ready to replace all the DNF4 plugins so you cannot have them and you should use DNF4 if you need their functionality.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:41
lruzicka: in this case there is a 1:1 replacement
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:19:55
adamw: That update was made TEN YEARS AGO (in the middle of the Edition split efforts)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:03
but i'm gonna go with the interpretation that this was a significant change to the meaning of a criterion that did not go through review and so shouldn't necessarily be taken as read
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:20:13
I assume that was meant to essentially guarantee that we didn't change Editions on upgrade accidentally
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:22
Stephen Gallagher: yup, i am using you as Past Stephen's legal representative. L:D
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:20:26
Well if I can do that, I change my vote
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:26
Stephen Gallagher: yup, i am using you as Past Stephen's legal representative. :D
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:20:30
BetaBlocker -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:31
i'll send out a mail to the list later to discuss removing or rewording that footnote
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:07
i think tying ourselves to guarantees about specific packages is a mistake, personally, but we can chew it over
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:22:24
OK, I think I know what the intent was there:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:33
lemme count votes
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:23:15
BetaBlocker -1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:23:20
Essentially, it was to guarantee that upgrades from F20 -> F21 would specify a preferred edition and then guarantee that they would get everything from the default install of that Edition plus keep whatever else was on their system (i.e. don't reset them to a default install)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:23:38
It was probably intended to be a one-time criterion that we never removed.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:38
if brandon switched to -1, we're at +2 (nixuser and tablepc). we have -3 from the issue, plus -1 from me, -1 from kamil, that's -5
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:23:43
BetaBlocker -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:53
Stephen Gallagher: thanks
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:24:50
I feel like what is happening isn't the best possible behavior, but I don't think it's a blocker
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:25:19
Agreed, and given that `dnf5` changes the CLI around plugins anyway I'm not sure we could actually fix this
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:25:22
BetaBlocker -1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:25:28
-1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:25:43
BetaBlocker -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:42
proposed !agreed 2309697 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we agreed that the bug here is genuine and there ought to be a better effort made to achieve as close as possible as a 1:1 replacement of plugins on upgrade, but it does not violate the intent of the criterion. a sidebar discussion on the "plus any packages the user previously had" wording in the criterion footnote clarified that it is a leftover from the Edition work whose intent is not to make a bug like this a blocker, see meeting log for more details
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:27:43
adamw: FYI, the thread "Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements" from early October, 2014 on the test list has this discussion. It wasn't written without discussion :-)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:27:49
-1 here; ack.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:52
Stephen Gallagher: sorry :)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:27:54
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:54
well found
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:27:55
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:28:01
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:05
i did not remember it
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:28:05
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:28:07
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:28:21
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:28:23
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:26
!agreed 2309697 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we agreed that the bug here is genuine and there ought to be a better effort made to achieve as close as possible as a 1:1 replacement of plugins on upgrade, but it does not violate the intent of the criterion. a sidebar discussion on the "plus any packages the user previously had" wording in the criterion footnote clarified that it is a leftover from the Edition work whose intent is not to make a bug like this a blocker, see meeting log for more details
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:28:30
adamw: Neither did I; it was almost exactly a decade ago. We were young and foolish back then!
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:28:48
I'm old and foolish now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:54
one of those things is definitely changing over time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:59
ok, let's move on to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:04
!topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:42
big thanks to everyone for voting on a lot of these yesterday! i cleared about 8 of them out of the list before the meeting, it will definitely make the meeting shorter
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:43
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-dipy, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:43
!topic (2280596) python-dipy fails to build with Python 3.13: TypeError: cannot remove variables from FrameLocalsProxy
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:43
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280596
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:43
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1644
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:32
this is an FTI
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:41
so unless there's anything weird about it, we'd usually be +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:30:56
I am +1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:31:05
I fail to see the point though; why can't this go in as a regular update?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:23
we take FTIs to ease upgrades
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:23
I see I messed up my vote
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:28
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:33
also there's a process thing where the package is in danger of getting retired, i think
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:42
eh, no, that probably only relates to rawhide
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:32:07
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:08
also we kinda like to have a frozen tree that's as 'consistent' as possible, though that's a bit arbitrary
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:32:16
adamw: An FTI to ease upgrades *might* make sense at GA, but for Beta?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:32:24
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:38
even for beta, it's nice for people trying to do the upgrade during freeze
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:32:51
I'd rather be testing sooner, than later
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:57
if you have the FTI package installed and you try and upgrade, either your upgrade fails or the package gets uninstalled
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:33:09
But realistically this will land in the u-t repository and be available anyway
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:14
not for upgrades
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:24
upgrade uses the repos you *currently* have enabled, not the default set of the target release
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:44
so unless you have u-t enabled on what you're currently running (which isn't default for a stable release), the upgrade does not use u-t
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:34:12
BetaFE +1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:34:44
So in the case of Python packages, they'd get uninstalled because the F40 package wouldn't be runnable against the new Python runtime?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:47
so if we don't take these as FEs, upgrade for anyoen with the affected package installed is broken until whenever we do the post-freeze stable push
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:13
Stephen Gallagher: if you upgrade with `dnf` without `allowerasing` behavior it'll show an error
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:21
if you upgrade with GNOME Software it'll remove the package
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:22
(iirc)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:35:36
That was going to be my next question: "is `--allowerasing` the default?"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:35:51
And if it is on G-S, I guess I'm grudgingly +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:35:54
I do not think so
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:56
not for dnf, no. well...it wasn't for dnf4. i don't think it is for dnf5. for g-s it is.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
even if it's not, the experience isn't fun, you get an error message and you have to figure out what to do.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:36:30
Also with dnf5, I need to pass --allowerasing when having packages issues on upgrades
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:31
anyhoo, we got votes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:40
BetaFE +1 for me too, for the record
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:36:46
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:36:48
and I do have them sometimes, as I am using quite a lot of packages on my machine at home
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:45
proposed !agreed 2280596 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a fails-to-install bug; we generally grant these FEs in order to avoid problems for folks who have them installed when upgrading before the post-freeze stable push
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:37:52
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:37:58
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:38:05
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:38:21
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:38:36
Just as a data point from the previous blocker discussion: I just performed an upgrade from F40 to F41 with dnf plugins installed and the upgrade didn't remove any of the DNF4 ones, as expected.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:38:54
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:03
!agreed 2280596 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a fails-to-install bug; we generally grant these FEs in order to avoid problems for folks who have them installed when upgrading before the post-freeze stable push
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:39:06
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:14
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280555
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:14
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:14
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-libusb1, MODIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:14
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1642
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:14
!topic (2280555) python-libusb1 fails to build with Python 3.13: AssertionError": self.assertEqual(local_dict.get(ENUM_NAME), ENUM_VALUE)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:26
same as the last one (looks like Miro did a round of proposals for Python 3.13 FTIs)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:29
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:39:46
Can we bundle them together and vote en masse on the meeting?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:39:53
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:40:04
+1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:40:08
BetaFE +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:40:12
+1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:40:16
+1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:40:18
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:46
Stephen Gallagher: i'd do that if there were many more, but there's only one more after this i think
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:41:05
Roger
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:13
proposed !agreed 2280555 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - also accepted as a fails-to-install issue, which we typically accept to ease upgrade issues
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:41:31
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:41:38
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:41:44
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:41:47
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:41:56
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:42:24
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:26
!agreed 2280555 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - also accepted as a fails-to-install issue, which we typically accept to ease upgrade issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:35
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-lmdb, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:35
!topic (2259530) python-lmdb fails to build with Python 3.13: implicit declaration of function ‘PyObject_AsReadBuffer’
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:35
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259530
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:35
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1643
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:35
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:40
okay, last one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:41
+1 again
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:43:08
BetaFE +1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:43:15
BetaFE +1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:43:18
BetaFE +1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:43:38
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:43:48
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:43:49
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:10
proposed !agreed 2259530 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - once again, accepted as a fails-to-install issue, which we typically accept to avoid upgrade issues
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:44:15
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:44:17
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:44:20
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:44:23
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:44:29
ack on the Lack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:44:44
https://www.ikea.com/cz/en/p/lack-side-table-white-30449908/
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:45:07
"unique construction" == legs that screw onto a top
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:41
!agreed 2259530 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - once again, accepted as a fails-to-install issue, which we typically accept to avoid upgrade issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:02
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309685
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:02
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, uv, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:02
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1648
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:02
!topic (2309685) uv-0.4.4 is available
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:02
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:13
this one kinda needs more justification, i think
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:46:22
After reading how the spin is intended to be used, I think I want to change my vote
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:47:34
How?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:47:49
Miro replied here: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1648#comment-930951
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:47:57
Python Classroom is apparently intended to be used from a live environment
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:02
yeah, the reply is still lacking detail for me
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:48:08
So post install updates are unlikely to ever happen
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:47
thinking about it...i'd buy it harder as a *final* FE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:48:48
I think I'm +1 FE
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:48:53
I mean... it's okay enough for me, +1, but ya all know me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:06
i'd hope we're not planning to run any actual classrooms off the beta media? but ehhh. i can be a weak +1, it won't hurt anything important
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:49:09
Yeah if that spin is only used as livemedia I'm +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:49:18
But might they not want to test it?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:33
sure, but you don't need the latest version on the live medium to test it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:41
the scenario seems to be about real-world use, not testing
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:50:09
that's a good point
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:50:18
so I'm +0
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:50:27
FWIW, it is a minor bump from 0.3.3 to 0.4.7
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:50:40
Which is quite a big jump
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:00
i think that's specifically why they want it (the package got very out of date and the new version has major new features)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:06
that ought to be in f41, or whatever
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:51:13
I guess if it'll land as soon as freeze ends, I stand by my vote
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:52:26
I am still inclined to +1, the risk for anything else is minimal, and I am feeling towards "let the spin maint have what he wants"
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:52:59
Agree
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:53:07
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:54:05
+1, I do not think this is too dangerous
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:21
proposed !agreed 2309685 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's a feature of a spin that's expected to be used live (without updates) and the risk to anything else is small
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:54:28
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:54:29
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:54:32
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:54:35
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:54:35
ack
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:55:23
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:24
!agreed 2309685 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's a feature of a spin that's expected to be used live (without updates) and the risk to anything else is small
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:51
ok, let's do a quick spin through:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:55
!topic Accepted Beta blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:04
!info reminder: we're checking status, not re-voting, unless we have a specific reason to re-vote
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:13
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1605
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:13
!topic (2282171) gsk: vulkan renderer causes gtk4 apps to crash on resize operations on Raspberry Pi 4 and 400
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:13
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2282171
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:13
!info Accepted Blocker, bcm283x-firmware, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:24
so we've had some solid progress since last week here
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:56:26
there was some progress at least
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:56:28
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:49
it seems like this has been identified as happening only when the memory assignment is not as we expect, and Peter Robinson has taken responsibility for fixing that, he says he's got a plan for it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:04
and i guess in the worst case we can at least document the boot arg to fix the assignment
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:57:23
at least for beta, that could be enough
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:32
alright
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:08
!info there is solid progress on this now, the issues at all levels are better understood, and peter is working on a fix for the incorrect memory assignment that should avoid the bug happening in normal use
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:18
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1607
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:18
!topic (2283978) Raspberry Pi 4 automatically suspends when idle, claims to support suspend, but can't be woken up
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:18
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283978
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:18
!info Accepted Blocker, kernel, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:29
it's kinda sounding like we're just gonna have to document this, i think
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:00:44
+1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:01:26
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:10
!info it's seeming increasingly like we will just have to document this issue, but we'll leave the bug open until go/no-go in case any bright ideas appear
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:24
!info Accepted Blocker, mesa, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:24
!topic (2270430) Raspberry Pi 4: KDE initial setup is broken without nomodeset, KDE desktop won't load with nomodeset
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:24
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270430
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:24
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1621
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:32
looks like there's a fix now, can we test it?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:02:38
nope
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:02:48
sorry, it doesn't work, we need the xwayland patch
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:03:05
I just realized that this fact is only in chat with peter
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:24
okay :( plz update bug
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:03:54
and yeah
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:03:59
in bodhi, in the old update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-21402656dd#comment-3706645
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:06
!info a fix for this is in the works, but the initial take was not sufficient. František Zatloukal will update the bug with details
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:04:49
and in bz too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270430#c26
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:04:55
I am not that terrible person...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:19
:D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:26
ok, i guess that's everything
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:28
!topic Open floo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:30
sigh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:33
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:38
any other business, or floo ?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:13
Reminder the Beta Go/No-Go is scheduled for this Thursday @ 1700 UTC
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:48
thanks aoife
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:07
np
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:04
!info Beta Go/No-Go is this Thursday (if we have a candidate by then) at 1700 UTC
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:10:15
nothing from me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:42
alrighty, thanks for coming everyone
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:10:58
thanks for the meeting!
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:11:09
Thanks Adam!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:16
!endmeeting