2025-03-31 16:01:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F42-blocker-review
2025-03-31 16:01:08 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-03-31 16:01:08 UTC
2025-03-31 16:01:09 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F42-blocker-review'
2025-03-31 16:01:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-03-31 16:01:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who's around for blocker fun?
2025-03-31 16:02:05 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-31 16:02:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
2025-03-31 16:02:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi 
2025-03-31 16:02:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2025-03-31 16:02:17 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-31 16:02:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2025-03-31 16:03:04 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-31 16:03:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2025-03-31 16:03:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Aloha
2025-03-31 16:04:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get rolling with some shiny shiny boilerplate
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Beta_Release_Criteria
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@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.
2025-03-31 16:05:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2025-03-31 16:06:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for F42 Final, we have:
2025-03-31 16:06:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 8 Accepted Blockers
2025-03-31 16:06:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Proposed Blockers
2025-03-31 16:06:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2025-03-31 16:06:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2025-03-31 16:06:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2025-03-31 16:09:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ...or me
2025-03-31 16:09:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info adamw will secretarialize
2025-03-31 16:09:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2025-03-31 16:09:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2025-03-31 16:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1817
2025-03-31 16:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, abrt, NEW
2025-03-31 16:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2356237) "Package isn't signed with proper key" for all packages
2025-03-31 16:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356237
2025-03-31 16:10:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sounds like this one is brand new
2025-03-31 16:10:19 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-31 16:10:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukas Brabec (lbrabec)
2025-03-31 16:10:33 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> Sorry, I'm late again...
2025-03-31 16:11:02 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> just in time for the fun, dont worry
2025-03-31 16:11:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> feel like secretarying, Lukas Brabec ?
2025-03-31 16:11:37 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> sure
2025-03-31 16:12:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info in a late substitution, Lukas Brabec will secretarialize
2025-03-31 16:13:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, i'd be +1 on this bug in theory, but seems like reproducing isn't easy so far?
2025-03-31 16:13:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> it's very easy for me
2025-03-31 16:13:42 <@kparal:matrix.org> just install the latest compose
2025-03-31 16:14:35 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> it is "testable" on a live session?
2025-03-31 16:14:42 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I'll give it a try
2025-03-31 16:15:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> should be, i think
2025-03-31 16:15:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you have enough ram and crash something small
2025-03-31 16:15:19 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> we already have Fedora-Workstation-Live-42-20250331.n.0.x86_64.iso
2025-03-31 16:15:21 <@kparal:matrix.org> adamw: FYI, I just proposed a second abrt blocker
2025-03-31 16:15:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yay
2025-03-31 16:15:42 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I tried on 20250329n and couldn't replicate.
2025-03-31 16:16:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> Signature   : (none)
2025-03-31 16:16:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> kparal@fedora:~$ rpm -qi gnome-calculator | grep Signature
2025-03-31 16:16:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> that's the broken session
2025-03-31 16:16:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> kparal@localhost-live:~$ rpm -qi gnome-calculator  | grep Signature
2025-03-31 16:16:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> this is the working session:
2025-03-31 16:16:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 16:16:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> Signature   : RSA/SHA256, Mon 24 Mar 2025 02:05:45 PM CET, Key ID c8ac4916105ef944
2025-03-31 16:16:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 16:17:13 <@kparal:matrix.org> so yay, we have unsigned packages when I install them from the live image, for some reason
2025-03-31 16:17:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...the bug is that the package is not signed?
2025-03-31 16:17:44 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Seems not abrty to me.
2025-03-31 16:18:10 <@kparal:matrix.org> hmm, when I downloaded the iso before the compose was finalized, could it affect it?
2025-03-31 16:18:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> shouldn't do, no
2025-03-31 16:18:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the package at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/Fedora-42-20250331.n.0/compose/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/g/gnome-calculator-48.0.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm is signed for sure
2025-03-31 16:19:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> sha256sum matches on my ISO
2025-03-31 16:19:48 <@kparal:matrix.org> I just booted the Live image, the package is not signed
2025-03-31 16:20:08 <@kparal:matrix.org> so, not ABRT's fault
2025-03-31 16:20:19 <@kparal:matrix.org> possibly still a problem, though 🙂
2025-03-31 16:21:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> nothing is signed there
2025-03-31 16:21:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> it seems, I just tested a few random packages
2025-03-31 16:21:34 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !ho
2025-03-31 16:21:39 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> So, I suspect this is an issue we have had where kiwi gets the buildroot repo enabled, so it installs unsigned stuff from it. ;(
2025-03-31 16:21:52 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I hate this bug, but it's probibly back.
2025-03-31 16:21:53 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-31 16:21:55 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2025-03-31 16:21:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> fun
2025-03-31 16:22:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, hmm, this is awkward
2025-03-31 16:22:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> unsigned packages on the release ISOs would definitely be blocker-y for me
2025-03-31 16:22:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we don't have the release ISOs yet...
2025-03-31 16:23:02 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> hum, rawhide seems ok in container tho. so I could be wrong.
2025-03-31 16:23:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'd still want to take this as +1 blocker to indicate 'we want to be fairly sure this isn't gonna happen to the final compose'...
2025-03-31 16:23:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> or is it only lives?
2025-03-31 16:23:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think we know for sure yet
2025-03-31 16:23:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the ws live from today's 42 compose is the image we know is affected
2025-03-31 16:23:38 <@kparal:matrix.org> I updated the bug
2025-03-31 16:23:57 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> kamil said its on a fresh installed system
2025-03-31 16:23:57 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Punt and see how it will be on newer composes?
2025-03-31 16:23:59 <@kparal:matrix.org> yesterday's compose
2025-03-31 16:24:12 <@kparal:matrix.org> 0330, to be exact
2025-03-31 16:24:30 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I will check the 0331 in a couple of minutes
2025-03-31 16:24:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> upgrading the packages from bodhi makes then signed, so this is a compose bug
2025-03-31 16:24:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, sorry
2025-03-31 16:25:22 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> strange, I tested here on live iso and ABRT don't even get the crashed gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:25:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, not sure whats going on from a quick glance, but we can dig more
2025-03-31 16:25:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao you should jsut be able to do `rpm -qi gnome-calculator` and see whether it shows a signature
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Version     : 48.0.2
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Name        : gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Release     : 1.fc42
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Architecture: x86_64
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Install Date: Mon 31 Mar 2025 09:45:09 AM UTC
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Group       : Unspecified
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Size        : 7092212
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> License     : GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC0-1.0
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Signature   : RSA/SHA256, Mon 24 Mar 2025 01:05:45 PM UTC, Key ID c8ac4916105ef944
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Summary     : A desktop calculator
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Bug URL     : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> URL         : https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Calculator
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Vendor      : Fedora Project
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Packager    : Fedora Project
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Build Host  : buildvm-x86-09.iad2.fedoraproject.org
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Build Date  : Mon 24 Mar 2025 10:48:18 AM UTC
2025-03-31 16:26:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Source RPM  : gnome-calculator-48.0.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
2025-03-31 16:26:30 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I don't have this issue on 20250329.
2025-03-31 16:26:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> thats on Fedora-Workstation-Live-42-20250331.n.0.x86_64.iso
2025-03-31 16:26:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh
2025-03-31 16:26:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so only 0330 is bad>
2025-03-31 16:27:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so only 0330 is bad?
2025-03-31 16:27:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> it seems so
2025-03-31 16:27:07 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> so it seems
2025-03-31 16:27:19 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can test 0330 KDE in a moment
2025-03-31 16:27:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> too bad we don't have rpm on netinst-style images
2025-03-31 16:28:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1910/130901910/root.log shows all packages as coming from the repo 'c76fb725f9c04d1eb18c01135c708e15'
2025-03-31 16:28:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we wipe the rpm db on netinsts, iirc
2025-03-31 16:28:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> to save space
2025-03-31 16:28:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> I know, maybe we should just stop. But that's for another discussion 🙂
2025-03-31 16:29:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> 0330 KDE seems signed
2025-03-31 16:30:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-31 16:30:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> am I just lucky or what, to select the single broken image in a long time 🙂
2025-03-31 16:30:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-03-31 16:30:24 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> confirmed here, only 0330 workstation
2025-03-31 16:30:32 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> rpm -qi gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:30:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 0330 and 0331 both seem to have the same repo config - the compose repo, plus a f42-kiwi-build repo
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Release     : 1.fc42
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Bug URL     : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> URL         : https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Calculator
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Vendor      : Fedora Project
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Packager    : Fedora Project
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Build Host  : buildvm-x86-09.iad2.fedoraproject.org
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Build Date  : Mon 24 Mar 2025 10:48:18 AM UTC
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Source RPM  : gnome-calculator-48.0.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Summary     : A desktop calculator
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Signature   : (none)
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> License     : GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC0-1.0
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Size        : 7092212
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Name        : gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Version     : 48.0.2
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Architecture: x86_64
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Install Date: Sun 30 Mar 2025 08:39:32 AM UTC
2025-03-31 16:30:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Group       : Unspecified
2025-03-31 16:30:43 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> That's your attitude.
2025-03-31 16:30:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> from the 0330 iso
2025-03-31 16:30:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> firefox is signed on KDE, not signed on Workstation, both 0330
2025-03-31 16:31:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> something failed during the compose process. If 0331 is ok, I guess we can just skip this bug (and make sure the final images are OK)
2025-03-31 16:31:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> that's a good check for automation, I guess
2025-03-31 16:32:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah...
2025-03-31 16:32:04 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> 0331 is signed
2025-03-31 16:32:14 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> at least for gnome-calculator
2025-03-31 16:32:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can stuff a check in openqa, i guess
2025-03-31 16:32:28 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> and firefox
2025-03-31 16:32:36 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I can do it.
2025-03-31 16:32:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no! i can!
2025-03-31 16:32:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> :D
2025-03-31 16:33:00 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> as you wish
2025-03-31 16:33:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (if you do it i will nitpick your approach for two weeks and then forget about the pr for two months)
2025-03-31 16:33:27 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> yeah, that's possible :D
2025-03-31 16:34:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> gnome-software have same behavior (not signed at 0330 and signed at 0331)
2025-03-31 16:35:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so...shall we declare this not exactly a blocker, but try and remember to keep an eye on it for final?
2025-03-31 16:35:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and ask neal and kevin to try and figure out what happened?
2025-03-31 16:35:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> so punt?
2025-03-31 16:35:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd say rejected
2025-03-31 16:35:38 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ok
2025-03-31 16:35:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but...punt might work
2025-03-31 16:35:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> FB -1
2025-03-31 16:36:03 <@kparal:matrix.org> blocker -1, at least until we see it repeat
2025-03-31 16:37:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> -1 and watch out for the next one
2025-03-31 16:37:55 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> FinalBlocker -1
2025-03-31 16:38:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> -1
2025-03-31 16:38:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2356237 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to have been a blip with unsigned packages appearing in a single ISO in a single compose. If we see it repeat, or figure out the cause and decide it endangers the official compose, we will re-consider this. We will check this in all RC releases before signing off
2025-03-31 16:39:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:39:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 16:39:13 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 16:39:33 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-31 16:39:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2356237 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to have been a blip with unsigned packages appearing in a single ISO in a single compose. If we see it repeat, or figure out the cause and decide it endangers the official compose, we will re-consider this. We will check this in all RC releases before signing off
2025-03-31 16:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +boniboyblue, +derekenz, +nielsenb)
2025-03-31 16:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354798
2025-03-31 16:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2354798) "no usable disks" after re-creating MDRAID
2025-03-31 16:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
2025-03-31 16:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1809
2025-03-31 16:40:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this has +4, but i left it undecided as i kinda wanted to see if kparal can answer my question
2025-03-31 16:40:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'm trying to test it now
2025-03-31 16:40:57 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'll need a few minutes
2025-03-31 16:40:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and i wanted to cite what I vaguely recall as a precedent...when gtkui was new, i think we adopted a convention that we wouldn't take bugs as blockers if, to trigger them, you had to do something wrong and attempt to fix it, all in one install attempt
2025-03-31 16:41:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this was kind of a practical thing because otherwise we would never have shipped the damn thing, iirc
2025-03-31 16:42:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> humm thats a wise procedure
2025-03-31 16:43:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> though back then our install DVD still existed and failure cases were doom-worthy
2025-03-31 16:43:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> deciding advanced storage blockers gets pretty squishy because you're almost always going to be able to break it if you poke enough buttons
2025-03-31 16:43:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we still have an install dvd, though it doesn't have webui on it yet
2025-03-31 16:43:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> gah, found more bugs...
2025-03-31 16:44:12 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> someone do somthing about Kamil...
2025-03-31 16:44:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 😁
2025-03-31 16:44:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we've found the *real* blocker
2025-03-31 16:45:04 <@kparal:matrix.org> is it me?
2025-03-31 16:45:25 <@kparal:matrix.org> I think I reproduced the error even when the RAID was already existing
2025-03-31 16:45:47 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yeah its Fedora thats bugged lol
2025-03-31 16:45:57 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> blocker bug meetings: the place where the real QA fun takes place ;)
2025-03-31 16:48:34 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes, the bug is there even for pre-existing RAID
2025-03-31 16:48:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-03-31 16:48:46 <@kparal:matrix.org> boot with a RAID present, delete it, create a new one -> no usable disks found
2025-03-31 16:48:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with that i'm fine to be +1
2025-03-31 16:49:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> at least until the devs argue :D
2025-03-31 16:49:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, anyone want to vote -1? we have sufficient +1s to accept atm
2025-03-31 16:49:49 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Nah, I'll stick with my +1.
2025-03-31 16:49:58 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2025-03-31 16:50:00 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Im good
2025-03-31 16:50:05 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-31 16:50:53 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-31 16:51:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2354798 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the Beta and Final custom partitioning criteria
2025-03-31 16:51:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ehhh
2025-03-31 16:52:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:52:10 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:52:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 16:52:13 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-31 16:52:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 16:53:16 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> and maybe a waive candidate for latter? based on what adamw said about the former experience on the gktui?
2025-03-31 16:53:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2354798 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Beta custom partition criterion "...the installer must be able to: Correctly interpret, and modify as described below ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
2025-03-31 16:53:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there, i'll be less lazy
2025-03-31 16:54:03 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:54:12 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Ack.
2025-03-31 16:54:14 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 16:54:21 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:54:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 16:54:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2354798 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Beta custom partition criterion "...the installer must be able to: Correctly interpret, and modify as described below ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
2025-03-31 16:54:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1818
2025-03-31 16:54:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2356257) Can't open settings to adjust Bugzilla apikey
2025-03-31 16:54:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gnome-abrt, NEW
2025-03-31 16:54:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356257
2025-03-31 16:54:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> another kparal special
2025-03-31 16:55:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> freshly from the oven
2025-03-31 16:55:39 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> strange that I didn't noticed this before, abrt now really don't have a "config" button
2025-03-31 16:56:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yes can confirm
2025-03-31 16:57:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what's under the burger menu there?
2025-03-31 16:57:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> just the list of crashes?
2025-03-31 16:57:18 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Only About.
2025-03-31 16:57:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> heh
2025-03-31 16:57:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> so how can a user set this the graphical way?
2025-03-31 16:57:37 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> only in CLI
2025-03-31 16:58:36 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> https://github.com/abrt/gnome-abrt/issues/370
2025-03-31 16:58:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> this not only affects expired apikeys, but also the cases where the user typed in some invalid string sequence during their first bug report, I guess
2025-03-31 16:59:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can test it, but I think it would make much difference, it's just an additional use case
2025-03-31 16:59:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can test it, but I don't think it would make much difference, it's just an additional use case
2025-03-31 17:00:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> mmmm. i would say this seems like it can be fixed pretty well with a post-release update...
2025-03-31 17:00:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not *sure* it's bad enough to block release, though it's obviously sucky
2025-03-31 17:01:10 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> It depends whether your API key still works.
2025-03-31 17:01:35 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> If not, the app is really useless and it would violate the criterion, won't it?
2025-03-31 17:02:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean, i guess that's the decision we're making
2025-03-31 17:02:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how commonly will someone enter a no-longer-valid API key
2025-03-31 17:02:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or typo it
2025-03-31 17:02:33 <@kparal:matrix.org> we should also consider upgrades
2025-03-31 17:02:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would probably consider it violated if it's not possible to set an API key
2025-03-31 17:02:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> since that makes the whole problem reporting flow broken
2025-03-31 17:03:06 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Agreed
2025-03-31 17:03:13 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> as far as I see, we canot entre the first one for the start
2025-03-31 17:03:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> the apikeys now have one year expiration time. So if somebody wants to report a bug after a long time, and they upgraded to F42 before that, they can no longer report the bug
2025-03-31 17:03:19 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> only using the CLI
2025-03-31 17:03:49 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> using the graphical interface it isnt possible by now
2025-03-31 17:04:12 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> or if it is a new user
2025-03-31 17:04:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> a new user can enter his/her first apikey just fine
2025-03-31 17:04:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for a new user you get one shot to enter your API key and get it right
2025-03-31 17:05:08 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> If the key does expiry does it prompt for a new one?
2025-03-31 17:05:29 <@kparal:matrix.org> no. At least for revoked keys. I can't wait a year to test an expired one 🙂
2025-03-31 17:07:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> but where? if the GUI doesn't have a button os place to set it?
2025-03-31 17:07:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> a prompt comes up
2025-03-31 17:07:22 <@kparal:matrix.org> The first apikey request pops up a dialog for you
2025-03-31 17:07:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if there's no API set at all
2025-03-31 17:07:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> oh, ok then
2025-03-31 17:07:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if there's no API key set at all
2025-03-31 17:07:38 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> its a one shot thing
2025-03-31 17:08:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but if there is an API key that's set but isn't valid for whatever reason (typoed, expired, revoked) it tells you the report failed but doesn't prompt you to change it (which is arguably also a bug, but hey)
2025-03-31 17:08:35 <@kparal:matrix.org> a typo is a showstopper
2025-03-31 17:08:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> but no more request for a new one
2025-03-31 17:08:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 17:08:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> {"error":true,"message":"The API key you specified is invalid. Please check that you typed it correctly.","code":306,"documentation":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/docs/en/html/api/index.html"}
2025-03-31 17:08:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 17:09:18 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> so, its just a bad user experience then...
2025-03-31 17:09:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> oh whel
2025-03-31 17:10:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao the big problem is that rhbz API keys expire after a year
2025-03-31 17:10:52 <@kparal:matrix.org> for me it's +1 blocker
2025-03-31 17:10:54 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> what the criterion says about this? what is the purpose on this?
2025-03-31 17:11:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so whenever you report your first bug through abrt, that clock starts ticking. a year after that, that API key will be invalid and you will no longer be able to report via abrt (if this isn't fixed)
2025-03-31 17:11:12 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I mean, the ABRT usefullnes?
2025-03-31 17:11:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, kparal cited the generic cirterion
2025-03-31 17:11:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
2025-03-31 17:11:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which says the app "must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test"
2025-03-31 17:12:09 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> so, think on a newcommer use case
2025-03-31 17:12:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think we have any specific criteria for crash reporting outside of the installer (which doesn't use gnome-abrt)
2025-03-31 17:12:19 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I would also add that it hinders testability
2025-03-31 17:12:25 <@kparal:matrix.org> if you want to include the time component, add the criterion about upgraded systems...
2025-03-31 17:12:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, yeah
2025-03-31 17:12:39 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> they wanna use fedora and help, and get this abrt popup
2025-03-31 17:12:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> beta critera say upgrades must work and 'The upgraded system must meet all release criteria'
2025-03-31 17:13:45 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> and learn they must create a bugzilla account for it to finish, and dont get the api popup never again because they close the window to create there account on bugzilla
2025-03-31 17:14:25 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Would help if the API was set in `/etc/libreport/plugins/bugzilla.conf`
2025-03-31 17:14:41 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> oh, thats a ggod information
2025-03-31 17:14:49 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> oh, thats a good information
2025-03-31 17:15:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao i think the popup would keep appearing so long as you hadn't actually saved an API key
2025-03-31 17:15:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as soon as you've saved one, though, you won't see it again
2025-03-31 17:15:21 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I cannot find any abrt settings, the `~/.config/abrt/settings` is empty
2025-03-31 17:15:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka it
2025-03-31 17:15:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka it's probably in gsettings ?
2025-03-31 17:15:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> as a workaround, the apikey can be adjusted using seahorse
2025-03-31 17:15:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, right
2025-03-31 17:15:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the key store. since it's a secret.
2025-03-31 17:15:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's a painful workaround, though
2025-03-31 17:16:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on the whole i'm maybe a +0.37
2025-03-31 17:16:24 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> considering this ->  "any specific criteria for crash reporting outside of the installer (which doesn't use gnome-abrt)" I'll probably vote -1 on this.
2025-03-31 17:17:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> geraldosimiao: the criterion I used says that a basic functionality must work for that app. So it depends whether you consider apikey refresh/fixup a basic functionality.
2025-03-31 17:17:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I personally would consider it basic functionality
2025-03-31 17:17:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> for a bug report, I think it's included
2025-03-31 17:17:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> for a bug reporter, I think it's included
2025-03-31 17:17:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> in the past, I think we would have considered setting user credentials the same way
2025-03-31 17:18:46 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> yeah, ok, one must be able to change our API from the UI. agreed
2025-03-31 17:19:13 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 Blocker
2025-03-31 17:21:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> does that mean you're +1 ?
2025-03-31 17:21:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yup
2025-03-31 17:21:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FinalBlocker
2025-03-31 17:21:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i think we're at +3.37
2025-03-31 17:21:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2025-03-31 17:21:33 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1 FinalBlocker
2025-03-31 17:21:46 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-31 17:21:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (after this meeting is done i need to go file a patent on fractional votes)
2025-03-31 17:21:53 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Aye - I'll go +1 as well.
2025-03-31 17:22:19 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I think seahorse is not installed by default, so you are stuck with nothing.
2025-03-31 17:22:46 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1 FB
2025-03-31 17:24:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2356257 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of the Final criterion requiring preinstalled apps on Workstation to "start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test", with the Beta upgrade criterion also relevant. We agreed this bug renders the app effectively useless if an invalid API key is set, and there are enough scenarios where that may be the case - e.g. a typo or a previously-valid key on an upgraded system which has now expired - to accept this as a blocker
2025-03-31 17:24:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 17:24:48 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 17:24:49 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 17:25:00 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 17:25:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2356257 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of the Final criterion requiring preinstalled apps on Workstation to "start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test", with the Beta upgrade criterion also relevant. We agreed this bug renders the app effectively useless if an invalid API key is set, and there are enough scenarios where that may be the case - e.g. a typo or a previously-valid key on an upgraded system which has now expired - to accept this as a blocker
2025-03-31 17:25:23 <@kparal:matrix.org> a 🍪 for adamw for a nice description
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355033
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1813
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2355033) Fedora 42 beta unable to shutdown despite "No inhibitors"
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-5) (+augenauf, -boniboyblue, -derekenz, -geraldosimiao, -nielsenb, -lruzicka)
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
2025-03-31 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+boniboyblue, +asciiwolf, +nielsenb, +lruzicka)
2025-03-31 17:25:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so a lot of people voted -1 on this because they 'could not reproduce', but it does actually seem like a pretty clear bug
2025-03-31 17:25:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah this seems pretty bad
2025-03-31 17:25:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> farribeiro has already given cookies to adamwill during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-31 17:26:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> is this verified with gnome-shell 48 final though?
2025-03-31 17:26:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean, per the upstream description i can't imagine why it wouldn't still happen
2025-03-31 17:26:56 <@kparal:matrix.org> adamw: your gedit comment confuses me, how is it related?
2025-03-31 17:26:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the upstream explanation is that this is caused by a change in systemd and gnome-shell needs to change *something* to adapt to systemd's new behaviour, and I don't see any indication that that already happened
2025-03-31 17:27:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Kamil Páral well, gedit will inhibit shutdown so long as any unsaved change is present, and you can't shutdown even if you tell gnome to ignore it and shutdown anyway...
2025-03-31 17:27:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you have to quit gedit first
2025-03-31 17:28:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> upstream seems to think this is all the same bug, as far as I can make out
2025-03-31 17:28:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I wonder why this doesn't happen on KDE Plasma
2025-03-31 17:28:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> by all rights the same problems should be there too
2025-03-31 17:28:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> so any app that would inhibit shutdown would cause this, right?
2025-03-31 17:28:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, afaict
2025-03-31 17:28:43 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> So this has been an intended change?
2025-03-31 17:29:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but it seems like some of the reporters don't have any app obviously inhibiting shutdown, but upstream looked at some debug output and confidently declared it's the same bug
2025-03-31 17:29:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> "broken as intended"
2025-03-31 17:29:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can confirm this with gedit. However, from the dialog, it's pretty clear which apps holds the lock.
2025-03-31 17:29:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Christopher Boni well, sort of. the change in systemd was intended by systemd devs. the consequence for gnome was not exactly 'intended', but systemd is not going to revert, gnome has to change to adapt to the new systemd behavior. again aiui
2025-03-31 17:30:33 <@kparal:matrix.org> s/gedit/gnome text editor
2025-03-31 17:31:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think sometimes that's the case and sometimes it isn't
2025-03-31 17:31:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> btw, logout is not blocked
2025-03-31 17:31:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/8296#note_2397718 has the bit where skeller looked at robatino's dbus traffic and decided there's definitely an inhibition
2025-03-31 17:31:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> if it's like the text editor screenshot above - that's similar to the macOS behavior it seems
2025-03-31 17:31:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> 
2025-03-31 17:31:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> if the user can't tell what application causes this that definitely sounds bad
2025-03-31 17:32:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> if we can find a case where it doesn't identify the app, and where it happens regularly, I would consider this as a blocker
2025-03-31 17:32:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC-6 well, part of the bug is that if you click "Power Off" there, it doesn't work (it's supposed to override the inhibit  but it doesn't)
2025-03-31 17:32:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but seems there are other cases where gnome won't tell you what's causing the inhibition but it won't shutdown
2025-03-31 17:33:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess maybe that's when something like dnf is trying to inhibit shutdown...
2025-03-31 17:33:27 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Do you get the same indication if you use systemctl poweroff?
2025-03-31 17:33:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe test running a `dnf update` on a vt and trying to shutdown while it's happening?
2025-03-31 17:35:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i dunno, i feel like i don't entirely understand this, but it seems bad. :P
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> Alternatively, ignore inhibitors and users with 'systemctl poweroff -i'.
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> kparal@localhost-live:~$ systemctl poweroff 
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> Operation inhibited by "kparal" (PID 5394 "gnome-session-b", user kparal), reason is "user session inhibited".
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> Please retry operation after closing inhibitors and logging out other users.
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> 'systemd-inhibit' can be used to list active inhibitors.
2025-03-31 17:37:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> ```
2025-03-31 17:37:45 <@kparal:matrix.org> doesn't identify the app
2025-03-31 17:38:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what happens graphically when you try to shut down?
2025-03-31 17:38:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it just does nothing?
2025-03-31 17:39:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Fedora-Workstation-Live-42-20250331.n.0.x86_64.iso identify the app
2025-03-31 17:39:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can confirm that dnf blocks poweroff/reboot, but the dialog doesn't say anything
2025-03-31 17:39:40 <@kparal:matrix.org> bingo
2025-03-31 17:39:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> me too
2025-03-31 17:39:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-03-31 17:40:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so you just get a 'normal' shutdown dialog, but it doesn't actually work?
2025-03-31 17:40:12 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Seems to me like identification: /etc/libreport/events/report_Bugzilla.conf
2025-03-31 17:40:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> with dnf operation happening, yes
2025-03-31 17:40:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright
2025-03-31 17:40:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, we pretty much understand what's going on now...do we consider this bad enough to be a blocker?
2025-03-31 17:40:51 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Seems to me like identification: Operation inhibited by "kparal" (PID 5394 "gnome-session-b", user kparal), reason is "user session inhibited".
2025-03-31 17:41:01 <@kparal:matrix.org> on the other hand, with a dnf operation, perhaps forcing poweroff shouldn't be really easy, I don't know 🙂
2025-03-31 17:41:07 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> either way, this is systemd changing behavior, breaking users
2025-03-31 17:41:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess it's a conditional violation of beta "Shutting down, rebooting, logging in and logging out must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops", the condition being 'something is inhibiting shutdown', and it's especially bad if the 'something' is not tracked by the gnome session so it doesn't tell you what it is
2025-03-31 17:42:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Matthias Clasen i do kinda grok why systemd would change it, though. it's not like it was *good* that it just let you shut down while dnf was running on a VT before...
2025-03-31 17:42:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what we really want here is something that didn't exist before (consistently warn you about all inhibitions, but let you override them if you really want to). aiui
2025-03-31 17:43:10 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> yes, but I see a lot of discussion that sounds like gnome is to blame, when really, this is badly executed changes on the system side
2025-03-31 17:43:18 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> *systemd*
2025-03-31 17:44:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhow, the practical question is, do we think it's a bad enough violation of the criteria to block on, per the framing above
2025-03-31 17:44:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> voting time...
2025-03-31 17:44:50 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> if you think the systemd changes make sense, the you ought to vote no, I think
2025-03-31 17:44:58 <@kparal:matrix.org> can you imagine more real-world scenarios? Because particularly with dnf, this is actually good...
2025-03-31 17:46:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, the gedit case is annoying
2025-03-31 17:47:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i often want to shutdown and know that the sixty tabs i have in gedit that are 'unsaved' because i did a git pull don't matter
2025-03-31 17:47:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would like to able to just ignore them and shut down, instead of having to close gedit first before it will shut down
2025-03-31 17:48:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes, but that case doesn't sound blockery enough to me
2025-03-31 17:48:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if there are things that trigger the 'you can't shut down but we won't tell you why' behaviour which are *less important* than 'there's actually a system update running', that's quite bad i think
2025-03-31 17:48:33 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'm more concerned with the case where there's no app displayed, but you still can't shut it down
2025-03-31 17:48:36 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> it is definitely annoying if you cannot ignore
2025-03-31 17:48:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah
2025-03-31 17:48:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we don't know what the actual inhibiting...thing was in those cases yet, i don't think?
2025-03-31 17:49:14 <@kparal:matrix.org> for example, a firefox download might block it? not sure
2025-03-31 17:49:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we *could* punt this to try and identify what things set inhibitions and can trigger that flow, i guess
2025-03-31 17:49:28 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> how does it behave with gnome-text-editor?
2025-03-31 17:49:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> same as gedit i think
2025-03-31 17:49:41 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> cant switch off
2025-03-31 17:49:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it triggers the problem but the dialog does at least tell you what's inhibiting (though it doesn't tell you why overriding it isn't working)
2025-03-31 17:50:27 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yes maybe we should punt
2025-03-31 17:53:08 <@kparal:matrix.org> Perhaps make a call so that people can help us cases when this is misbehaving, using `systemd-inhibit` to identify processes which are not visible in the dialog
2025-03-31 17:53:15 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Can't gnome force it to systemd?
2025-03-31 17:53:45 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I'm not sure about it...
2025-03-31 17:53:50 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Well, I'm defo still FinalFE +1
2025-03-31 17:53:53 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 Punt
2025-03-31 17:54:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is systemd-inhibit output actually enough?
2025-03-31 17:54:10 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> yeah, FE +1 for sure
2025-03-31 17:54:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> robatino's output in https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/8296#note_2397689 doesn't show anything, to my eyes anyway
2025-03-31 17:54:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> all those things are only inhibiting sleep, not shutdown
2025-03-31 17:54:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah, good call, finalfe +1 for sure
2025-03-31 17:54:44 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The `systemctl poweroff -i` does work.
2025-03-31 17:55:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 FE
2025-03-31 17:56:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-session/-/issues/142#note_2340847 for the discussion of potential  fixes
2025-03-31 17:57:49 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1 FE
2025-03-31 17:58:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2355033 - punt (delay decision) - after some discussion of the details behind this bug, we're not sure whether to block on it. The worst case is when something not tracked by GNOME is inhibiting shutdown; in this case, shutdown fails without explanation. But that will not usually be the case, and in at least some cases, the new behaviour is probably better than the old behaviour (e.g. it wasn't *good* that you could happily shut down while a package install operation was happening outside of GNOME). we will punt this to try and investigate specific triggers to aid in deciding whether to block
2025-03-31 17:58:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> er, nm, patching that
2025-03-31 17:58:30 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 17:58:44 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-31 17:58:49 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 17:58:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2355033 - punt (delay decision) on blocker status, AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - after some discussion of the details behind this bug, we're not sure whether to block on it. The worst case is when something not tracked by GNOME is inhibiting shutdown; in this case, shutdown fails without explanation. But that will not usually be the case, and in at least some cases, the new behaviour is probably better than the old behaviour (e.g. it wasn't *good* that you could happily shut down while a package install operation was happening outside of GNOME). we will punt this to try and investigate specific triggers to aid in deciding whether to block. It's clearly desirable to improve this behaviour during freeze if we can, though, so this is accepted FE.
2025-03-31 17:59:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> patched, added acceptedFE wording
2025-03-31 17:59:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 17:59:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 18:00:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 18:04:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2355033 - punt (delay decision) on blocker status, AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - after some discussion of the details behind this bug, we're not sure whether to block on it. The worst case is when something not tracked by GNOME is inhibiting shutdown; in this case, shutdown fails without explanation. But that will not usually be the case, and in at least some cases, the new behaviour is probably better than the old behaviour (e.g. it wasn't good that you could happily shut down while a package install operation was happening outside of GNOME). we will punt this to try and investigate specific triggers to aid in deciding whether to block. It's clearly desirable to improve this behaviour during freeze if we can, though, so this is accepted FE.
2025-03-31 18:04:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info that's all the proposals (that last one was the only outstanding proposed FE)
2025-03-31 18:04:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's take a look at:
2025-03-31 18:04:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2025-03-31 18:04:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as a reminder, we're just checking status here, not revoting unless there's reason to
2025-03-31 18:05:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, POST
2025-03-31 18:05:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2354805) putting /boot on MDRAID0 is accepted and results in a non-booting system
2025-03-31 18:05:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354805
2025-03-31 18:05:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1810
2025-03-31 18:05:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this is in POST so we're waiting on a new anaconda build to test
2025-03-31 18:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2353002) webui does not support MBR disks, but doesn't properly communicate this, instead e.g. requires biosboot partition even though that is impossible
2025-03-31 18:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353002
2025-03-31 18:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1804
2025-03-31 18:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, anaconda-webui, ASSIGNED
2025-03-31 18:06:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...i think there was an attempt to fix this but it didn't work and got pinged back to ASSIGNED? is that right?
2025-03-31 18:06:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes
2025-03-31 18:06:23 <@kparal:matrix.org> there's a new patch ready
2025-03-31 18:06:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> whee
2025-03-31 18:06:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, set it back to POST i guess
2025-03-31 18:06:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't see a note about the new patch though?
2025-03-31 18:06:54 <@kparal:matrix.org> ugh, sorry
2025-03-31 18:07:02 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'm still looking at the previous bug
2025-03-31 18:07:05 <@kparal:matrix.org> you're too fast!
2025-03-31 18:07:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hah, yeah
2025-03-31 18:07:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> I moved this back to assigned because multiple people confirmed it's not fixed
2025-03-31 18:08:02 <@kparal:matrix.org> and I have no more background info on this 🙂
2025-03-31 18:09:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-03-31 18:09:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info a fix for this was attempted, but testing seems to indicate it's still broken, we will wait to hear back from anaconda team
2025-03-31 18:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352679
2025-03-31 18:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, distribution, ASSIGNED
2025-03-31 18:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1794
2025-03-31 18:10:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2352679) Fedora 42: Server boot aarch64 image exceeds maximum size
2025-03-31 18:10:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info adamw sent a patch for dracut which would get this *nearly* back under size but not quite
2025-03-31 18:10:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we can try to trim a bit more, or just bump the target size
2025-03-31 18:10:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info adamw sent a patch for lorax which would get this *nearly* back under size but not quite
2025-03-31 18:11:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> still, not much to worry about
2025-03-31 18:11:34 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I need to be going.
2025-03-31 18:12:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, thanks for coming
2025-03-31 18:12:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, fedora-repos, NEW
2025-03-31 18:12:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1816
2025-03-31 18:12:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2356173) updates-testing needs to be disabled for F42 GA
2025-03-31 18:12:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356173
2025-03-31 18:12:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pretty straightforward, just needs the thingy in the spec file flipping and a new build
2025-03-31 18:13:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this is pretty straightforward, just waiting for a maintainer to do the new build
2025-03-31 18:13:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, mdadm, POST
2025-03-31 18:13:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
2025-03-31 18:13:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
2025-03-31 18:13:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2325906) [live] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
2025-03-31 18:13:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ugh, this one is a pain. i have a patch that fixes it, but upstream doesn't like it, but isn't sending any alternative. i can just put my patch downstream, and will do that if necessary, but it'd be nice if we could resolve the upstream logjam :/
2025-03-31 18:14:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm trying to find anyone at RH who has enough clout to make things move upstream
2025-03-31 18:14:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we have a potential fix for this, but it's encountering pushback upstream, trying to get that resolved before backporting it
2025-03-31 18:16:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1807
2025-03-31 18:16:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2354592) GNOME crashes on startup if keyboard accessibility features are enabled
2025-03-31 18:16:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354592
2025-03-31 18:16:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, mutter, POST
2025-03-31 18:16:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so the fix for this is available and tested, but we're hanging on for a mutter 48.1 release instead of backporting it...
2025-03-31 18:16:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any news on that, Matthias Clasen ?
2025-03-31 18:16:55 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> release is incoming
2025-03-31 18:17:16 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> within the next few hours
2025-03-31 18:18:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yay
2025-03-31 18:18:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info the fix for this is done and tested and will be part of an imminent mutter 48.1 which should show up in fedora soon after release
2025-03-31 18:18:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2354865) repo states are not synchronized between DNF5 and PackageKit (GUI package managers), because of repo overrides
2025-03-31 18:18:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, PackageKit, NEW
2025-03-31 18:18:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1812
2025-03-31 18:18:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865
2025-03-31 18:18:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any news on this one, Kamil Páral?
2025-03-31 18:19:38 <@kparal:matrix.org> no news
2025-03-31 18:20:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, okay
2025-03-31 18:20:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're getting kinda tight on time
2025-03-31 18:20:48 <@kparal:matrix.org> I don't think this will get fixed
2025-03-31 18:20:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> this cycle
2025-03-31 18:21:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's reassign it to libdnf for now
2025-03-31 18:21:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> to get dnf devs' input
2025-03-31 18:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we'll get dnf developers' input on this, but it's a high risk not to be fixable within the release time frame, we may have to waive it
2025-03-31 18:22:26 <@kparal:matrix.org> I already had dnf devs feedback somewhere
2025-03-31 18:22:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, you did? can't have been on the bug, i don't see it there
2025-03-31 18:23:14 <@kparal:matrix.org> well, it was a related bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2336535
2025-03-31 18:23:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah
2025-03-31 18:23:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> they're not really saying "we'll fix it"
2025-03-31 18:23:45 <@kparal:matrix.org> but we can ask again
2025-03-31 18:23:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, well, doesn't seem quite the same
2025-03-31 18:23:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> worth asking for the purpose of this bug, anyhow
2025-03-31 18:24:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did the reassignment
2025-03-31 18:24:03 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-31 18:25:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1814
2025-03-31 18:25:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355207
2025-03-31 18:25:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2355207) Remote install via RDP fails (client either drops connection immediately or hangs at a white screen) since Fedora-42-20250316.n.0
2025-03-31 18:25:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, pipewire, POST
2025-03-31 18:25:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i figured this out and sent a fix to lorax, bcl just wants me to tweak it a bit, i'll do that oday
2025-03-31 18:25:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> should be able to land it and get rid of this soon
2025-03-31 18:25:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i figured this out and sent a fix to lorax, bcl just wants me to tweak it a bit, i'll do that today
2025-03-31 18:25:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info fix for this is pending, just needs a bit of a tweak on PR review, should land soon
2025-03-31 18:27:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aaand that's everything
2025-03-31 18:27:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2025-03-31 18:27:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks? thanks for the careful attention to complex bugs this week
2025-03-31 18:27:50 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Hi!
2025-03-31 18:27:58 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> The server image bug (I missed it)
2025-03-31 18:28:22 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> We talked about it during the server meeting last week, and they were ok with pushing up the limit, just had to figure out how
2025-03-31 18:28:23 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org//meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-03-26/fedora-server.2025-03-26-17.00.txt
2025-03-31 18:28:45 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> The giant fedora logo at login in Workstation should be sorted upstream now.
2025-03-31 18:29:27 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> you say about this bug? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352679
2025-03-31 18:29:33 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> yes
2025-03-31 18:29:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Paul Maconi (Aggraxis) thanks. the way to do it is a ticket or pr on https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/pgm_docs
2025-03-31 18:30:01 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Thank you
2025-03-31 18:30:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> although...we should really write a better process for this...
2025-03-31 18:31:03 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> I will relay that back to the Server folks. I can do it if they want, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. :)
2025-03-31 18:31:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/pgm_docs/blob/main/f/releases/modules/ROOT/pages/f42/blocking.adoc is the file to change
2025-03-31 18:31:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also tag me on the ticket because i have to update the size data for the relval check when it changes
2025-03-31 18:32:08 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Will do
2025-03-31 18:32:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks!
2025-03-31 18:32:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, thanks for coming folks
2025-03-31 18:32:57 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Thanks Adam!
2025-03-31 18:33:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting