<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:57
!startmeeting F42-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:58
Meeting started at 2025-03-17 16:00:57 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:58
The Meeting name is 'F42-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:03
!topic Roll Call
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:11
who's around for blocker fun?
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:01:32
!hi
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:01:34
!hi
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:35
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:36
Jiří Konečný (jkonecny)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:36
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:01:41
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:42
Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@siosm:matrix.org>
16:01:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:54
Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:02:05
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:07
Lukas Brabec (lbrabec)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:02:24
wow, full room
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:02:29
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:31
Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
16:02:37
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:45
Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:02:55
how's everyone doing tonight? check, check. check 1 2
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:03:13
Its Monday yaay
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:26
truly the best day of a week whose name starts with M
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:03:31
I'm just heading home from work so I might have longer reactions on mobile - please be patient
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:03:42
adamw: jkonecny is here for 2352573, we might want to start with it so that he doesn't need to wait
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
truly the best day of the week whose name starts with M
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:56
sure, we can do that
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:04:05
!hi
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:04:06
Aloha
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:04:07
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:04:17
or we can leave it as the last one, if you prefer, jkonecny 🙂
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:04:25
Mednesday?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:01
let's do some boilerplate!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!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>
16:05:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:21
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:22
!info 5 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:22
!info 4 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:27
!info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:27
!info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:32
who wants to secretarialize?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:44
hmm, so meetbot can finally understand multiline pastes?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:49
yes!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:54
for the last few weeks actually
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:00
I pasted it line by line the last time, it was... painful
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:04
i've been using it throughout f42 cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:06
yeah isn't it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:13
good to know now 😄
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:09
Lukas Brabec usually volunteers to do secretarializing... right?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:08:11
(usually = I forced him to do it the last time)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:16
=)
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:08:44
sure, why not
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:08:53
Lukas Brabec++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:08:58
kparal gave a cookie to lbrabec. They now have 15 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:09:06
derekenz gave a cookie to lbrabec. They now have 16 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:09:20
eh, the release cycles are off 🙂
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:09:35
but the cookies are no less tasty
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:48
!info lbrabec will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:51
alrighty, let's get started
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:04
jkonecny do you want to do 2352573 first or last?
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:10:21
First would be better
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:10
alright
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!info Proposed Blocker, anaconda-webui, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz, +geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!topic (2352573) Can't choose a bootloader device, crash when biosboot partition is on the second one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352573
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1798
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:24
so this has +3 in ticket now, but let's talk about it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:12:31
There are two proposed violated criteria: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352573#c8
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:06
i feel like *at least* if this isn't going to work, it should fail better
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:13:15
So background information, we have decided that this feature is one of the low priority ones as it is already quite hidden in GTK UI and it is not expected workflow for a Workstation user to have to deal with this.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:26
it shouldn't be possible to "click through" the error, and none of the associated weirdness should happen
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:31
We usually want to block on functionality that is broken by accident, and not intentionally removed/not implemented (as is the case here), so I don't think we need to insist on the first one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:39
i'm fine with waiving or modifying the criterion requiring this to actually be *allowed*, though
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:39
However, I feel more about the second one
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:46
However, I feel more strongly about the second one
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:14:22
My main point is how problematic this could be?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:25
jkonecny will it be possible to fix it so you can't click through the error and are properly prevented from trying this?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:14:31
so if this can be communicated well ("this is not supported" etc) and it doesn't crash, I think it's ok
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:14:47
I agree with this.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:15:08
The functionality can be added back in future releases.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:15:11
Sounds good
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:21
That's what I would like to see too
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:15:21
in other words, anaconda should not allow installing to a layout that it doesn't support (and then the installation crashes or the system is not bootable)
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:16:18
Yeah, I think I agree with that. Not sure how complicated that would be from the top of my mind but it shouldn't traceback.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:16:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:16:49
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:53
ok, so for now shall we say we block on properly rejecting this operation, and we can reconsider if fixing that turns out to be unexpectedly hard?
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:16:54
My main concern is to implement a feature so late for F42. That is something I would like to avoid
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:17:28
currently it's not even clear on which disk the bootloader must reside. It thought it was always the first one, but then I found cases where anaconda actually insisted on having biosboot on the second (raid) device. It's just not clear what to do there.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:34
proposed !agreed 2352573 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing". We agree that, for webUI, it will be satisfactory if it correctly prevents the user from attempting this configuration, rather than allowing the user to proceed and crashing. We consider the ability to do this in gtkUI to fulfill the requirement that this operation be *possible*, so we do not require webUI to implement it for F42
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:18:48
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:18:50
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:18:51
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:18:55
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:19:13
ack
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
16:19:21
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:19:28
ack
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:19:39
Ack and I'll find out how complex that will be, hopefully not that much
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:30
!agreed 2352573 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing". We agree that, for webUI, it will be satisfactory if it correctly prevents the user from attempting this configuration, rather than allowing the user to proceed and crashing. We consider the ability to do this in gtkUI to fulfill the requirement that this operation be possible, so we do not require webUI to implement it for F42
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:23
!topic (2351848) unable to perform an mdraid installation with Fedora-Workstation-Live-42_Beta-1.4.x86_64.iso
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:23
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +boniboyblue, +geraldosimiao, +derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:23
!info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:23
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1792
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:23
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351848
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:34
so from Kamil Páral's testing it sounds like we might have more of these soon?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:22:07
I think we will, yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:16
this one, i think, is the case where you *create* a RAID device in the cockpit storage editor, but attempt to *assign it a mount point* in anaconda's mount assignment UI (not in the storage editor)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:22:31
but given that I misunderstood the UI several times, I wait for confirmation from devs before I propose it 😄
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:16
not sure if it also applies to assigning mount points to a RAID device that exists *before you launch the installer at all*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:24
any notes on this one, jkonecny ?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:25:48
+1 final from me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:37
yeah, i'm +1 on it without further input
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:27:09
FinalBlocker +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:27:16
+1, no matter where the RAID is created, Anaconda must be able to assign mountpoints.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:27:35
FinalBlocker +1
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:27:56
FinalBlocker +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:28:09
Must revote that?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:28:18
Already did at ticket
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:01
proposed !agreed 2351848 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of "Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", in the case that you're using webUI and the 'existing storage volume' is a RAID device (possibly only one you just created in the storage editor)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:17
geraldosimiao you don't need to, but it does make it easier to count :D
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:29:18
It is already ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:24
oh, right
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:29:42
😆
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:29:49
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:29:58
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:30:00
Ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:30:03
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:30:38
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:30:54
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:31:01
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:31:11
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:14
!agreed 2351848 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of "Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", in the case that you're using webUI and the 'existing storage volume' is a RAID device (possibly only one you just created in the storage editor)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:35
!info Proposed Blocker, grub2, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:35
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +lruzicka, +derekenz, +geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:35
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351559
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:35
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1789
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:35
!topic (2351559) Grub cannot boot Windows on a dual boot installation.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:48
hum, people must've put in ticket votes late on this? or i missed it in my sweep
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:56
+4 by ticket means it's accepted unless anyone wants to vote against
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:04
i'm fine with +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:32:11
+1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:32:35
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:01
proposed !agreed 2351559 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation. As long as the Windows installation does not have BitLocker enabled, the installer must also install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora"
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:34:42
Ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:34:44
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:34:45
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:34:47
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:34:56
ack
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
16:35:27
Adam, thanks for for verifying the 2352715 bug I will put it up on Gnome. I made it a blocker because it can make a really bad impression on a user.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:43
!agreed 2351559 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation. As long as the Windows installation does not have BitLocker enabled, the installer must also install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:56
Pat Kelly i haven't verified it, i just looked at your traceback. i didn't try to reproduce it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:31
but obviously, it *did* crash, or else you wouldn't have a traceback. :D it may be more complicated than just what you were doing at the time, though. it probably involves your graphics hardware, and it *may* possibly involve something like other files lying around, if it was doing some kinda thumbnailing or something
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:01
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352715
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:01
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-3) (-catanzaro, -nielsenb, -boniboyblue)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:01
!info Proposed Blocker, gtk4, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:01
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1795
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:01
!topic (2352715) [abrt] nautilus: wsi_common_acquire_next_image2(): nautilus killed by SIGSEGV
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:12
so this is the bug we were just talking about
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:23
pat clearly did hit a nautilus crash, but nobody else has reproduced it, yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:39
the traceback is clearly in graphics rendering code (it goes through gtk/gdk and ultimately crashes in mesa)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:22
i would maybe argue lightly for punting this so we can get an upstream to look at the traceback and see if they can figure it out, but i'd be ok with rejecting for now and reconsidering if we get worrying feedback from upstream
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:39:54
Punt seems ok
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:39:55
Is there any reason this use case requires running nautilus as admin?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:40:24
+1 punt
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:01
Brandon Nielsen it's kinda hard to say without some kinda domain expert looking at the traceback
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
16:41:17
I found it runing in an account with admin not at root. I didn't try it in a none admin account.
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
16:41:43
I'll try that now
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:42:34
It just seems to me you can set a preferred application just fine as a regular user, not sure why elevating privileges is necessary. Not that it really has much to do with whether this is a blocker or not. Just curious mostly.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:42:42
I'm on team FinalBlocker -1, no punt
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:43:34
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:43:36
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:44
ok, let's just call it rejected for now. it's not much of a difference, we can reconsider it if it seems worrying
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:05
Ok
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:44:26
Sure
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:35
proposed !agreed 2352715 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as nobody has been able to reproduce it, so it doesn't seem like a common enough crash to be a conditional criteria violation. We can re-consider it if somebody is able to reproduce, or if feedback from upstream indicates it may affect a substantial number of users
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:44:51
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:44:53
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:54
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:44:55
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:44:58
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:45:02
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:19
!agreed 2352715 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as nobody has been able to reproduce it, so it doesn't seem like a common enough crash to be a conditional criteria violation. We can re-consider it if somebody is able to reproduce, or if feedback from upstream indicates it may affect a substantial number of users
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:52
!info that's all the blocker proposals
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:54
let's move on to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:00
!topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:05
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-4) (-kashyapc, -nielsenb, -derekenz, -geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:05
!topic (2352385) unable to reuse the btrfs-formatted disks for other filesystems
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:05
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352385
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:05
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1793
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:05
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, cockpit, POST
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:46:16
Ah, jinx; it just came up
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:20
this was rejected as a blocker by ticket vote, but i've proposed it as an FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:38
seems like a good FE candidate to me
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:46:45
So, is this the process for it? - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:12
yeah. FE is more of a vibe than a rule
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:47:30
Part of me worries about pulling in changes to disk handling code this close to release, but at the same time I feel like stuff is going to need to be pulled in anyway, so, eh
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:47:30
Heh, noted. I might steal that line.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:31
we are trying to figure out 'is the benefit from allowing this fix through a freeze going to be greater than the risk of breaking something'
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:47:55
Yeah, makes full sense to me.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:48:11
FWIW, even the "criteria" that it is supposedly violating isn't entirely clear on this.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:49:17
(Anyway, it's discussed in the ticket and the bug; nothing much on it here for now, I guess)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:46
ah, well, that's a whole different thing called 'criteria judo'...:P
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:49:47
+1 FE
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:49:58
+1 FE
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:50:00
+1 FE
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:50:05
FinalFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:50:39
FinalFE +1
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
16:50:42
The bug 2352715 is not present with using a user without admin.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:03
proposed !agreed 2352385 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as an FE as it's a desirable feature that it would be good to get into F42 if we can land it in enough time to test it. we won't take it very late during freeze
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:51:05
That's super weird. Thanks for testing!
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:51:33
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:34
kashyapc a non-obvious thing about anaconda FEs, specifically, is that anaconda has a team policy that they won't change anything between beta and final unless it's a blocker or FE fix, *even before the final freeze kicks in*
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:51:36
Ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:51:36
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:51:47
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:52
so that's another reason to grant FEs where we think something ought to be fixed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:59
i should probably write that into the FE SOP, now I think about it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:15
!agreed 2352385 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as an FE as it's a desirable feature that it would be good to get into F42 if we can land it in enough time to test it. we won't take it very late during freeze
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:52:22
I see, makes sense. Thanks for the detail.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:50
!info that's all the proposals
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:54
let's take a quick spin through:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:59
!topic Accepted Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:13
as a reminder, we're not revoting these (unless we decide we have a reason to), just checking on status
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:21
!topic (2351026) UI partly in English when 100% translated
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:21
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1796
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:21
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351026
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:21
!info Accepted Blocker, anaconda-webui, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:46
this one was accepted by ticket vote. the vote was actually based on a slight misconception of the problem, but i figured it was easier just to pretend not to know about that, and let it through. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:21
looks like anaconda will post the full strings to weblate soon, so translators can get on them and hopefully we'll have more full translations in the final anaconda build we actually pull in for release. not sure there's any specific further action
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:48
!info anaconda team will put the full, correct strings in weblate, then it's over to translators to do the translations, we'll just hope as much as possible gets into the final f42 anaconda build
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:55:10
There's allot of cockpit strings there too
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:55:30
But we're working on translate those too
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:43
thanks a lot to all translators
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:55:56
👍😊
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:56:11
derekenz gave a cookie to geraldosimiao. They now have 34 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:56:20
😊
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:27
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1794
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:27
!info Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:27
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352679
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:27
!topic (2352679) Fedora 42: Server boot aarch64 image exceeds maximum size
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:58
so for this one...we either need to poke at the image and try to find a way to squeeze it under 1G, or just get server WG to declare a bigger target size and tell everyone still using a 1G USB stick they got in a box of Cheerios that they're out of luck
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:57:06
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to farribeiro during the F41 timeframe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:06
Peter Boy around?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:57:16
derekenz gave a cookie to farribeiro. They now have 31 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:33
the 1G target size also kinda functions as a 'let's not let this thing get too absurdly big' check...
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:57:39
Didn't think they still produced 1GB thumb drives.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:47
i haven't looked into the details yet but if i had to guess it'll probably turn out to be firmware bloat again
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:57:52
I didn't think those were a thing anymore
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:05
look, General Mills has to cut costs somrhow
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:58:06
at least as a Server WG rep, I'd probably say we should raise it to 2G
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:11
look, General Mills has to cut costs somehow
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:58:12
lol
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:34
so, for now let's just say:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:48
!action adamw to poke server WG about investigating this one and/or bumping the target size
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:00:13
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:00:23
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:00:30
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:36
!topic (2349314) Keyring fails to unlock on startup
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:36
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2349314
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:36
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1774
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:36
!info Accepted Blocker, gnome-keyring, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:16
this one's a bit awkward. there's an upstream proposed fix for the case of it I'm seeing in openQA, but it's not getting merged and i'm not sure why not. and also, Brandon Nielsen said that fix doesn't work for his version of the bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:19
so, hmm.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:42
i guess fairly soon i'll have to just backport the upstream fix, and then we can see if brandon can still reproduce, and if so, if anyone else can too...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:01:49
I haven't had a chance to test the latest beta / compose
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:02:06
Maybe something has been miraculously fixed
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:02:45
I did rerpo this a few days ago
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:03:03
I did repro this a few days ago
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:29
great!
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:03:29
Did you use Nextcloud, or a different account type?
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:03:58
No cloud
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:04:22
I got this when raising a bug via abrt trying to save the API Key.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:21
hmm, okay. if lots of people are seeing it, i'll definitely backport the proposed upstream fix so we can see if that changes things
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:31
!action adamw to backport the proposed (but somehow stalled) upstream fix for this so we can see if it changes how commonly folks are seeing cases of this problem
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
17:08:50
Back on bug 2352715 Just for grins I copied the config.xml to my home directory and in that directory I set it open with text editor and there were no problems at all. For further laughs I did a restart and started nautilus and set it to the root directory. I could open properties on a file and set the open with just fine. Some how this seems to have fixed the bug. I can't reproduce it at all
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:09:39
Probably some weird gremlin deep in the graphics stack
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
17:09:40
But really strange!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:53
yeah, does seem strange
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:09
i'd still file it upstream in case they can find something useful from the traceback
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:41
!info Accepted Blocker, mdadm, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:41
!topic (2325906) [live] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:41
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:41
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:16
this was waived to final
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:23
i think what we need here is an mdadm developer...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:12
although it does seem to me that blivet/anaconda could probably work around it if we can't get anytihng out of mdadm
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:17
just split the name on : or something
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:14
!info we are waiting on developers here. mdadm maintainer has not responded, this may need some poking. we might also need to consider working around the issue at anaconda/blivet level
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:24
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1765
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:24
!info Accepted Blocker, plasma-welcome-fedora, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:24
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2347292
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:24
!topic (2347292) The initial setup in KDE does not switch on third party repositories
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:28
Conan Kudo any thoughts on this?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:00
lruzicka you were tagged to re-test this, can you do that?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:17:01
nobody on the team can reproduce it
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:17:36
yeah
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:17:40
from what we can tell, it works fine... at least three of us have tried and we can't make the bug happen
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:17:47
could not repro
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:17:55
on VM and baremetal
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:09
rgr
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:18:09
Same
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:41
!action lruzicka to re-test this and either confirm it's fixed or provide a clear reproducer for KDE team
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:18
i think that's the lot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:24
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:27
any other business, folks?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:21:30
I can do it.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:21:34
But not now.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:21:40
Not from me
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:21:47
Not here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:19
lruzicka sure, doesn't need to be right now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:22
before next meeting would be great
<@tablepc:fedora.im>
17:22:26
It's been enlightening. Have a Great Day!
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:23:18
@derekenz:fedora.im++
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:59
thanks everyone! see you next time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:00
!endmeeting