2024-10-14 16:03:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F41-blocker-review
2024-10-14 16:03:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-10-14 16:03:10 UTC
2024-10-14 16:03:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F41-blocker-review'
2024-10-14 16:03:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-10-14 16:04:01 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2024-10-14 16:04:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2024-10-14 16:04:17 <@copperi:fedora.im> !hi
2024-10-14 16:04:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jan Kuparinen (copperi)
2024-10-14 16:04:28 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Hoy, let's toy
2024-10-14 16:04:36 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> !hi
2024-10-14 16:05:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi everyone
2024-10-14 16:05:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !hi
2024-10-14 16:05:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
2024-10-14 16:05:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2024-10-14 16:05:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2024-10-14 16:06:44 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-10-14 16:06:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2024-10-14 16:08:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get rolling with some boilerplate
2024-10-14 16:08:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-10-14 16:09:00 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@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.
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-10-14 16:09:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-10-14 16:09:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 6 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2024-10-14 16:09:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2 Accepted Blockers
2024-10-14 16:09:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 5 Proposed Blockers
2024-10-14 16:09:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for F41 Final, we have:
2024-10-14 16:09:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2024-10-14 16:09:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize
2024-10-14 16:10:24 <@kparal:matrix.org> if no one volunteers, I can do it
2024-10-14 16:10:32 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> thank you very much
2024-10-14 16:10:45 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> kparal++
2024-10-14 16:10:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> lruzicka gave a cookie to kparal. They now have 71 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-10-14 16:11:12 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> zodbot seems to be six month behind schedule
2024-10-14 16:11:26 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> zodbot seems to be six months behind schedule
2024-10-14 16:11:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> This is the 40 release cycle. ;) 41 hasn't been released yet.
2024-10-14 16:12:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> That's a curious definition of a release cycle
2024-10-14 16:13:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> definitions, we have em!
2024-10-14 16:14:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Kamil Páral will secretarialize, thanks
2024-10-14 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2024-10-14 16:14:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2317851) VLV errors in Fedora 40 with RSNv3 and pruning enabled
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, 389-ds-base, POST
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1684
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -ngompa)
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+ngompa)
2024-10-14 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317851
2024-10-14 16:15:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, hum
2024-10-14 16:16:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the freeipa criteria we have don't actually talk about certificate issuing at all
2024-10-14 16:16:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> requirements we have:
2024-10-14 16:16:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> "the system must handle multiple client enrolments and unenrolments, and client authentication via Kerberos. The web UI must be available and allow at least basic configuration of user accounts and permissions"
2024-10-14 16:16:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im>     Serve DNS SRV records for ldap and kerberos on port 53 (assuming it is deployed with DNS capability)"
2024-10-14 16:16:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> "    Serve LDAP requests, including TLS-encrypted LDAP requests, on port 389
2024-10-14 16:16:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im>     Serve LDAPS (LDAP encrypted with SSL) requests on port 636
2024-10-14 16:16:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im>     Return LDAP and LDAPS search results using simple auth or SASL/GSSAPI auth
2024-10-14 16:16:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im>     Serve DNS host records on port 53 (assuming it is deployed with DNS capability)
2024-10-14 16:17:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, maybe that's an oversight. but as it stands, to me it's a bit hard to make this a blocker
2024-10-14 16:17:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd happily give it +1 FE, though, to try and reduce the risk of the bug happening on early deployments
2024-10-14 16:19:02 <@pboy:fedora.im> Obviously, there is already a fix available, isn't it? So a FE would be ok. 
2024-10-14 16:19:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I said as much in the ticket as well
2024-10-14 16:23:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> a separate conversation might be to add criterion for the ACME feature in FreeIPA for future releases
2024-10-14 16:23:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I don't know enough about that feature to determine how to word that
2024-10-14 16:24:16 <@pboy:fedora.im> Can we delay and I'll contact Alexander? 
2024-10-14 16:24:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can accept an FE now I think
2024-10-14 16:24:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> abbra is in this room too
2024-10-14 16:24:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can ask him for his opinion
2024-10-14 16:25:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Boy: "IPA isn't working" is too complex of a concept
2024-10-14 16:25:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> FreeIPA does a lot of stuff
2024-10-14 16:25:28 <@pboy:fedora.im> I know, abbra are you online and can comment**
2024-10-14 16:25:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> issuing server certificates is just one of many, many, many things it does
2024-10-14 16:27:07 <@pboy:fedora.im>  Not, that certificdates are unimportant and seldom, today.
2024-10-14 16:27:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, it's a significant feature, that's why i said not having it in the criteria may be an oversight. but it's tricky to just make up criteria on the fly, we do try to avoid doing it unless it's absolutely necessary
2024-10-14 16:28:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think in this case +1 FE and punt is a good idea
2024-10-14 16:28:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-10-14 16:28:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and we can address the criteria gap for F42
2024-10-14 16:31:26 <@pboy:fedora.im> I’m not sure, what punt is (my mental dictionary is missing that), but OK for me.
2024-10-14 16:31:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> punt means defer
2024-10-14 16:32:00 <@pboy:fedora.im> OK, thjanks  :-)
2024-10-14 16:32:24 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 FE and punt
2024-10-14 16:32:47 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 FE and punt
2024-10-14 16:33:01 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1 FE and punt
2024-10-14 16:33:46 <@copperi:fedora.im> +1 FE and punt
2024-10-14 16:35:00 <@abbra:matrix.org> Hi, sorry I'm traveling right now. Lmdb bug is real and we have a good fix. FE is good enough.
2024-10-14 16:35:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 FE and punt 
2024-10-14 16:35:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2024-10-14 16:37:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2317851 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (blocker status) - we noted that the current FreeIPA criteria do not explicitly cover certificate issuance and management, but this could be considered an oversight. For now we agreed to accept this as a freeze exception issue to minimize the likelihood of problems for early deployments, and delay the blocker decision to allow for discussion of whether there should be a criterion covering this feature of FreeIPA
2024-10-14 16:37:26 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 16:37:43 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 16:37:46 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 16:37:54 <@copperi:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 16:38:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2317851 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (blocker status) - we noted that the current FreeIPA criteria do not explicitly cover certificate issuance and management, but this could be considered an oversight. For now we agreed to accept this as a freeze exception issue to minimize the likelihood of problems for early deployments, and delay the blocker decision to allow for discussion of whether there should be a criterion covering this feature of FreeIPA
2024-10-14 16:38:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317287
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2317287) Firmware RAID installation is impossible with automatic partitioning
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1683
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-1) (+geraldosimiao, +nielsenb, +ngompa, -nixuser)
2024-10-14 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nixuser)
2024-10-14 16:38:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 for me
2024-10-14 16:39:16 <@copperi:fedora.im> +1
2024-10-14 16:39:19 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2024-10-14 16:39:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2024-10-14 16:39:37 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1
2024-10-14 16:39:38 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 
2024-10-14 16:40:32 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2024-10-14 16:41:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed - 2317287 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect and install to firmware RAID storage devices" when using guided partitioning
2024-10-14 16:42:09 <@copperi:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 16:42:50 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 16:42:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 16:42:57 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 16:43:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 16:43:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed - 2317287 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect and install to firmware RAID storage devices" when using guided partitioning
2024-10-14 16:43:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, dbus-broker, NEW
2024-10-14 16:43:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2316066) dbus activated apps including the welcome dialog suffer 30-45 sec delay and/or crash on Workstation Live image randomly
2024-10-14 16:43:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316066
2024-10-14 16:43:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1677
2024-10-14 16:43:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,2,-0) (+asciiwolf, +jmaybaum, +sumantrom, +ngompa, geraldosimiao, nielsenb)
2024-10-14 16:43:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so last week we punted this one for more testing/discussion
2024-10-14 16:43:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since then it got three new +1 votes with no rationale
2024-10-14 16:44:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> from sumantro (who's on pto), Conan Kudo and catanzaro (who's not around apparently)
2024-10-14 16:44:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and we seem to have pinned it down to "So apparently it will happen on VMs using the "utc" clock offset (virt-manager default), with more than one CPU configured"
2024-10-14 16:45:04 <@kparal:matrix.org> no, I tested it today, no relevance to clock
2024-10-14 16:45:18 <@kparal:matrix.org> at least on my machine
2024-10-14 16:45:22 <@kparal:matrix.org> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316066#c16
2024-10-14 16:45:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (although...I'm using a virt-manager VM with two CPUs configured and still didn't see it, so eh
2024-10-14 16:45:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (although...I'm using a virt-manager VM with two CPUs configured and still didn't see it, so eh)
2024-10-14 16:45:43 <@kparal:matrix.org> adamw: try 6 cores. If you have at least 8 on your host system.
2024-10-14 16:45:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it was suggested that "So apparently it will happen on VMs using the "utc" clock offset (virt-manager default), with more than one CPU configured", but Kamil Páral can't confirm that
2024-10-14 16:46:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 3 cores + utc triggered it for me
2024-10-14 16:46:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 2 or 4 doesn't
2024-10-14 16:46:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it only triggers with an amount of CPUs that isn't 1 or 2^n? :D
2024-10-14 16:46:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> this was my testing: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316066#c8
2024-10-14 16:47:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well I don't have enough cores for more to verify that
2024-10-14 16:47:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> at least not on my laptop
2024-10-14 16:47:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> it's a race. The likelihood seems to go up with core count
2024-10-14 16:47:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> one core just makes everything hang anyway
2024-10-14 16:48:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's been that way for me for a while (several releases)
2024-10-14 16:48:26 <@kparal:matrix.org> with 1 core, everything works just fine here, it's just a bit slower
2024-10-14 16:51:04 <@kparal:matrix.org> honestly, I'm not sure whether this is worth a blocker. I'm more concerned about some possible side-effects that we're not aware of, than the initial delay itself.
2024-10-14 16:51:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-10-14 16:51:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> dbus not doing the thing is more worrying
2024-10-14 16:51:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah...the worst case is it causes something really important to crash and never recover, i guess
2024-10-14 16:51:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we haven't seen any indication that that can happen yet?
2024-10-14 16:51:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i kinda feel like if this was the last blocker we'd -1 or waive it
2024-10-14 16:52:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (it also feels hard to debug which i admit is influencing my thinking)
2024-10-14 16:52:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if it was absolutely the last thing, I'd probably waive under hard to fix and mark as common bug and hope we can fix it post-GA or next release
2024-10-14 16:53:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I am nervous about it because of how important dbus is for the system
2024-10-14 16:53:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> btw, do we know if this happens post-install too? has anyone checked that?
2024-10-14 16:53:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that might affect my evaluation
2024-10-14 16:55:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> I didn't see it post-install, just Live
2024-10-14 16:55:43 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I have never seen anything like that on any of my machines, they all have multiple cores, but I have been upgrading for a couple of years now. Never did a new installation of F41.
2024-10-14 16:56:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> lruzicka: you have to assign more than 2 cores to a VM in order to see it more frequently
2024-10-14 16:56:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> adamw: I didn't get far enough admittedly
2024-10-14 16:56:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> So this is only on a VM?
2024-10-14 16:56:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if it doesn't happen post-install i think i'm a weak -1
2024-10-14 16:56:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> I saw some issues on bare metal as well, but I'm not sure whether it was the same problem
2024-10-14 16:56:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but it'd be good to know mcatanzaro's thoughts, shame he's not around
2024-10-14 16:56:51 <@kparal:matrix.org> I saw abrt timing out during boot
2024-10-14 16:56:54 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> If so, then I would be -1 FB, +1 FE, CommonBugs
2024-10-14 16:59:03 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2024-10-14 16:59:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2024-10-14 17:00:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i *guess* we can punt it again, if by some miracle we get to other blockers addressed this week, we can do an RC without it fixed and argue it at go/no-go
2024-10-14 17:00:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> atm we don't have a clear winner in the voting
2024-10-14 17:02:17 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 to this 
2024-10-14 17:02:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's go with that
2024-10-14 17:02:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, did we give it FE already?
2024-10-14 17:02:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, we didn't. so let's do that at least. +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:03:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:03:53 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:04:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2316066 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (delay decision) on blocker status - this is still a tough one to call and the voting is split. Some people who voted in the issue didn't provide rationale and weren't at the meeting for discussion. for now we will punt on it, and if we're otherwise in a position to do an RC this week, we'll build one without a fix for this (unless it gets fixed) and discuss it again at the go/no-go meeting. It is accepted as an FE so we can get a fix in if one shows up
2024-10-14 17:04:35 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2024-10-14 17:04:41 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2024-10-14 17:04:43 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Ack
2024-10-14 17:04:53 <@copperi:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:05:19 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:05:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2316066 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (delay decision) on blocker status - this is still a tough one to call and the voting is split. Some people who voted in the issue didn't provide rationale and weren't at the meeting for discussion. for now we will punt on it, and if we're otherwise in a position to do an RC this week, we'll build one without a fix for this (unless it gets fixed) and discuss it again at the go/no-go meeting. It is accepted as an FE so we can get a fix in if one shows up
2024-10-14 17:05:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2318535) KInfoCenter does not start
2024-10-14 17:05:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1694
2024-10-14 17:05:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2318535
2024-10-14 17:05:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, kinfocenter, NEW
2024-10-14 17:06:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 - "system settings" is affected, and that's in the list in the criterion
2024-10-14 17:07:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Kamil Páral: how exactly did you try and launch them?
2024-10-14 17:07:12 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can't reproduce the issue
2024-10-14 17:07:14 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 FB
2024-10-14 17:07:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Same
2024-10-14 17:07:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> from the menu by writing their name and enter
2024-10-14 17:07:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> On 20241013?
2024-10-14 17:07:43 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes
2024-10-14 17:07:59 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> maybe with 2+ cores it works
2024-10-14 17:08:22 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I could not start it even with the launcher in the panel.
2024-10-14 17:09:57 <@kparal:matrix.org> lruzicka: have you tried turning it off and on again?
2024-10-14 17:10:30 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> well, not immediately, but I have restarted the VM in between occassionally. :D
2024-10-14 17:10:41 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> well, not immediately, but I restarted the VM in between occassionally. :D
2024-10-14 17:10:42 <@kparal:matrix.org> ok
2024-10-14 17:10:56 <@kparal:matrix.org> or waiting 45 sec, if this was the dbus issue again, by accident
2024-10-14 17:11:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, there might be some variability here
2024-10-14 17:11:53 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Assigned 4 cores, restarted, System Settings started, InfoCenter did not
2024-10-14 17:11:53 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Update:
2024-10-14 17:11:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in openqa stg, kinfocenter failed but system settings passed
2024-10-14 17:12:12 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> sometimes it passed.
2024-10-14 17:12:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but system settings failed on 20241012.n.0
2024-10-14 17:12:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in 2/3 runs
2024-10-14 17:12:51 <@kparal:matrix.org> we seem to have another race, great
2024-10-14 17:13:01 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> the KDE start stop tests will need some nurturing from me ... I suspect that after they bounce back to the saved image, KDE does not respond quickly enough
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:22 fedora khelpcenter[3463]: qt.qpa.wayland: eglSwapBuffers failed with 0x300d, surface: 0x0
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:12 fedora systemd[1095]: Started dbus-:1.2-org.kde.khelpcenter@0.service.
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:14 fedora khelpcenter[3463]: libEGL warning: egl: failed to create dri2 screen
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:43 fedora systemd[1095]: dbus-:1.2-org.kde.khelpcenter@0.service: Consumed 5.392s CPU time, 478.6M memory peak.
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i do see this in the logs of a case where kinfocenter failed:
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:43 fedora systemd[1095]: dbus-:1.2-org.kde.khelpcenter@0.service: Unit process 3477 (QtWebEngineProc) remains running after unit stopped.
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:43 fedora systemd[1095]: dbus-:1.2-org.kde.khelpcenter@0.service: Unit process 3475 (QtWebEngineProc) remains running after unit stopped.
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:43 fedora systemd[1095]: dbus-:1.2-org.kde.khelpcenter@0.service: Unit process 3474 (QtWebEngineProc) remains running after unit stopped.
2024-10-14 17:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:34:22 fedora khelpcenter[3494]: [3494:8:1012/073422.084372:ERROR:command_buffer_proxy_impl.cc(127)] ContextResult::kTransientFailure: Failed to send GpuControl.CreateCommandBuffer.
2024-10-14 17:13:55 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> With some gnome tests, I fixed it by adding some waiting time before it started to run, I might go over those 40 scripts and do it tomorrow, just for sure.
2024-10-14 17:14:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the "failed to create dri2 screen" warning is normal, i think, but the others look juicy
2024-10-14 17:14:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: they do not bounce back to an image any more
2024-10-14 17:14:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i changed that, remember
2024-10-14 17:14:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> erf, which might mean those errors aren't relevant, heh
2024-10-14 17:15:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah, i don't think they are, these are the kinfocenter messages
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:20 fedora systemd[1]: Created slice system-dbus\x2d:1.3\x2dorg.kde.kinfocenter.dmidecode.slice - Slice /system/dbus-:1.3-org.kde.kinfocenter.dmidecode.
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nothing too suspicious there :/
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:30 fedora systemd[1]: dbus-:1.3-org.kde.kinfocenter.dmidecode@0.service: Deactivated successfully.
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:20 fedora kinfocenter[3520]: qt.qpa.wayland: eglSwapBuffers failed with 0x300d, surface: 0x0
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:20 fedora systemd[1]: Started dbus-:1.3-org.kde.kinfocenter.dmidecode@0.service.
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:20 fedora audit[1]: SERVICE_START pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=dbus-:1.3-org.kde.kinfocenter.dmidecode@0 comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" hostname=? addr=? terminal=? res=success'
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:15 fedora kinfocenter[3520]: libEGL warning: egl: failed to create dri2 screen
2024-10-14 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Oct 12 04:35:13 fedora systemd[1095]: Started app-org.kde.kinfocenter@07a2c0cb37174e21a31d7bc2b46f3973.service - Info Center - Info Center.
2024-10-14 17:17:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess this might be a 'punt for more manual testing' case...
2024-10-14 17:18:14 <@derekenz:fedora.im> I think I had the wrong build. Running this now in a VM
2024-10-14 17:19:42 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Live cannot reproduce so far
2024-10-14 17:20:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh hey, i just reproduced the doubled-character bug in my vm, so at least that's not openqa only...
2024-10-14 17:21:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> I have a feeling that double character sometimes occurs even on my bare metal system
2024-10-14 17:22:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> It's hard to be sure that it wasn't just me holding the key too long, though
2024-10-14 17:22:26 <@kparal:matrix.org> so, punt this one and investigate more?
2024-10-14 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, i tried running 'systemsettings' from konsole a couple times in my vm, on the second try it has not shown up
2024-10-14 17:23:44 <@derekenz:fedora.im> So far so good on my end. Almost done installing
2024-10-14 17:25:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> top shows kwin_wayland completely pegging the CPU (but then maybe it does that anyway)
2024-10-14 17:25:38 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Running fine for me so far
2024-10-14 17:26:18 <@kparal:matrix.org> for once, I'm the one for whom it just consistently works 🙂
2024-10-14 17:26:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> haha
2024-10-14 17:26:29 <@kparal:matrix.org> Just tried it a dozen times
2024-10-14 17:26:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do you have 3d passthrough in your vm?
2024-10-14 17:26:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> nope
2024-10-14 17:27:54 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Cant break it yet
2024-10-14 17:28:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, no, kwin_wayland is at 14% on a clean boot
2024-10-14 17:29:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm. so my issue seems kinda reproducible by launching it, quitting it, quickly launching it again. but that's not what openqa is doing...
2024-10-14 17:29:31 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> See the InfoCenter icon and nothing more?
2024-10-14 17:30:02 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Derek Enz: ^
2024-10-14 17:30:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yes sir
2024-10-14 17:30:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: did you do anything besides boot the vm and run it?
2024-10-14 17:31:19 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I tried to run some applications, Konsole, checked notifications (they keep failing, too, on openQA)
2024-10-14 17:31:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm wondering if what you do before running the app affects it
2024-10-14 17:32:50 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> But ... the InfoCenter was the first app I attempted to run on that VM, because I wanted to see if it is a just a glitch on openQA or if I can see it, too .... and I did
2024-10-14 17:33:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmmf
2024-10-14 17:33:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, this feels a lot like the dbus one...kinda random and hard to debug
2024-10-14 17:33:22 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> in between, I ran several, after a fresh start I could start Settings. 
2024-10-14 17:33:36 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Maybe another fresh start and try that? I am on it.
2024-10-14 17:33:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm similarly a weak -1 on it, i guess, but it'd be good to hear more people's results on different vms/hw
2024-10-14 17:33:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Just ran updates and all good still
2024-10-14 17:34:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2024-10-14 17:35:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Nope, does not work.
2024-10-14 17:36:07 <@derekenz:fedora.im> VM?
2024-10-14 17:36:12 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> yes
2024-10-14 17:36:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the dbus errors look interesting, but i don't see those in openqa logs
2024-10-14 17:36:32 <@derekenz:fedora.im> A bare metal test might be good
2024-10-14 17:37:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> should we punt this and continue to investigate async?
2024-10-14 17:37:00 <@kparal:matrix.org> this feels a bit more important than the Workstation dbus problem (if they are not the same). Here it happens to an installed system (did I get that correctly?), and prevents important apps from launching (sometimes).
2024-10-14 17:37:27 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> yes, I am reporting an installed system
2024-10-14 17:38:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> probably punt at this moment, and accept if we can find a better reproducer, or if people see it happen frequently
2024-10-14 17:38:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yep, that's my feeling
2024-10-14 17:39:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, should we accept as FE?
2024-10-14 17:39:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:40:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 FE 
2024-10-14 17:40:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:40:45 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:41:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> I wonder if we should rename this bug to cover both apps?
2024-10-14 17:41:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2318535 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (delay decision) on blocker status - this is fairly new and reproduction is inconsistent across testers and systems so far. We will delay the decision for further investigation. It is accepted as a freeze exception issue, though, as it's at least bad enough that we should fix it before release if possible
2024-10-14 17:41:20 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-10-14 17:41:22 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:41:26 <@kparal:matrix.org> just to make sure we know what we're voting on
2024-10-14 17:41:46 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:42:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Kamil Páral: sure, or 'some apps', i guess
2024-10-14 17:42:17 <@kparal:matrix.org> ok, I'll update the title
2024-10-14 17:42:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:42:35 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:42:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2318535 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final), punt (delay decision) on blocker status - this is fairly new and reproduction is inconsistent across testers and systems so far. We will delay the decision for further investigation. It is accepted as a freeze exception issue, though, as it's at least bad enough that we should fix it before release if possible
2024-10-14 17:42:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2318559
2024-10-14 17:42:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1695
2024-10-14 17:42:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, mediawriter, NEW
2024-10-14 17:42:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2318559) Fedora media writer downloads wrong iso when kde spin is selected
2024-10-14 17:42:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is proposed as a 0-day blocker, i believe
2024-10-14 17:44:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we have the requirement for release-blocking images to boot
2024-10-14 17:44:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and "Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods"
2024-10-14 17:44:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> where "officially supported methods" links to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-and-using-a-live-installation-image/index.html , where FMW is the top of the list
2024-10-14 17:44:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...we could argue for this under that, i guess
2024-10-14 17:46:03 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2024-10-14 17:46:24 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2024-10-14 17:46:51 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1. and I have to are about the docs  :-)
2024-10-14 17:47:02 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1. and I have to care about the docs  :-)
2024-10-14 17:47:10 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1
2024-10-14 17:48:44 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1
2024-10-14 17:49:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2318559 - Accepted0Day - this is accepted as a zero-day blocker for Final (meaning we need the updated fmw to be released for previous Fedoras and Windows by F41 release day). it's accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations" with the footnote "Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods", since FMW is the primary supported method and KDE is a release-blocking desktop
2024-10-14 17:49:35 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:49:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ehh, i don't love that rationale, actually. we have "at least one" in bold and there are other methods
2024-10-14 17:49:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but...mmmmeehh. it's a holiday and i want to be out of this meeting
2024-10-14 17:50:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2024-10-14 17:50:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:50:18 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:51:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> good lord, writing this in C++ was definitely a choice
2024-10-14 17:51:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2318559 - Accepted0Day - this is accepted as a zero-day blocker for Final (meaning we need the updated fmw to be released for previous Fedoras and Windows by F41 release day). it's accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations" with the footnote "Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods", since FMW is the primary supported method and KDE is a release-blocking desktop
2024-10-14 17:52:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, moving on
2024-10-14 17:52:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
2024-10-14 17:52:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, so in the interests of time:
2024-10-14 17:52:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info there are six proposed freeze exceptions. They are all Python libraries that fail to install due to being built against Python 3.12
2024-10-14 17:54:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed All six proposed FEs - 2291477 , 2291818 , 2275052 , 2291961 , 2301218 , 2283616 - are accepted as they are fails-to-install bugs and by precedent we accept these if there are no unusual factors involved, to keep the frozen tree as installable as possible
2024-10-14 17:54:07 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:54:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> consider an ack as an implied +1
2024-10-14 17:54:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you're -1 on any of the bugs, vote nack or patch
2024-10-14 17:54:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:54:58 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:55:05 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-10-14 17:55:20 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-10-14 17:55:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2024-10-14 17:55:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed All six proposed FEs - 2291477 , 2291818 , 2275052 , 2291961 , 2301218 , 2283616 - are accepted as they are fails-to-install bugs and by precedent we accept these if there are no unusual factors involved, to keep the frozen tree as installable as possible
2024-10-14 17:55:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay
2024-10-14 17:55:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted blockers
2024-10-14 17:56:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2311936 and 2282171 are VERIFIED, just need pushing / closing
2024-10-14 17:56:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2317287 is ASSIGNED, so the anaconda team has taken responsibility for working on it
2024-10-14 17:56:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other notes?
2024-10-14 17:57:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-10-14 17:57:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business?
2024-10-14 17:57:45 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Nope 
2024-10-14 17:57:52 <@derekenz:fedora.im> All good
2024-10-14 17:58:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks folks
2024-10-14 17:58:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> farribeiro has already given cookies to adamwill during the F40 timeframe
2024-10-14 17:58:43 <@zodbot:fedora.im> kparal gave a cookie to adamwill. They now have 258 cookies, 16 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-10-14 17:59:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting