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