<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:19
!startmeeting F43-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:20
Meeting started at 2025-09-01 16:00:19 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:21
The Meeting name is 'F43-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:23
!topic Roll Call
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:32
ahoyhoy folks, who's around for blocker review?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:00:37
Howdy howdy yooo
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:19
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:20
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:02:29
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:31
Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:03:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:12
Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:32
hi hi everyone
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:41
thanks to everyone voting in tickets, we shouldn't be here too long
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:43
boilerplate alert!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:28
!info for Beta, we have: 4 proposed freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:40
!info for Final, we have: 2 proposed blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:47
who wants to secretarialize?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:04:50
Me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:59
thanks lukas
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:06
!info Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:16
let's get started with:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:22
!topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:41
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1892
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:41
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391935
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:41
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, exiv2, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:41
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+4,1,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +ngompa, +derekenz, +kparal, nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:41
!topic (2391935) FE: Exiv2 v0.28.6
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:50
so this has the votes but I left it on as I'm a bit worried, honestly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:23
they tried to do this update once and it was badly broken. there's a new attempt which doesn't have *the same* bug, but since it was already broken once, i'm a bit worried about pulling in the second try solely to fix some low-importance CVEs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:29
i feel like it might be safer as a 0-day
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:10
can i convince anyone to vote or change to -1? :D
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:07:21
BetaFE -1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:49
sure, if they messed up before, there's no reason why have to take it in now
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:07:56
I had to do mental gymnastics to get myself to 0 anyway, so slipping to -1 isn't a stretch for me
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:08:07
BetaFE -1
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:08:23
This package does not seem like extra important.
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:08:57
I mean so that it needs to be on the ISO.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:58
i'm also -1, formally
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:47
geraldosimiao Conan Kudo Derek Enz around?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:54
hmm, so we'll be stuck at a split vote on this i guess
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:12:19
I'll vote -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:27
proposed !agreed punt (delay decision) - the vote on this is now split (+3 / -5). we'll punt it for further voting on ticket
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:31
err
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:31
patch
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:46
proposed !agreed 2391935 - punt (delay decision) - the vote on this is now split (+3 / -5). we'll punt it for further voting on ticket
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:50
edited
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:39
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:13:55
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:14:15
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:14:30
btw .... editing this in the original line is ... weird
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:15
weird how?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:23
it's only a proposal so far
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:15:29
well, easily to miss, I guess
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:34
oh i see
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:39
well, that's why i said 'edited' :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:47
!agreed 2391935 - punt (delay decision) - the vote on this is now split (+3 / -5). we'll punt it for further voting on ticket
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:15:56
yeah, took me a minute to figure out :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:57
!topic (2391291) Switching on magnifier keeps crashing Gnome Shell
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:57
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gjs, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:57
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1888
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:57
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391291
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:16
this one was voted and accepted as a final blocker, it occurred to me maybe it should be a beta fe too
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:19
so i proposed it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:16:19
yeah, me too
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:16:42
BetaFE +1
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:16:48
yeah, if it is fixed properly ...
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:17:03
BetaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:17:23
BetaFE +1
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:18:47
BetaFE +1
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:18:47
Makes sense.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:58
proposed !agreed 2391291 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a Beta FE as it's obviously a poor experience if turning on an accessibility feature causes recurring crashes, and we would like to avoid this in the Beta if possible, including on the live image and before first update
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:20:31
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:20:38
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:21:11
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:21:22
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:36
!agreed 2391291 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a Beta FE as it's obviously a poor experience if turning on an accessibility feature causes recurring crashes, and we would like to avoid this in the Beta if possible, including on the live image and before first update
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:10
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2383756
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:10
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-extensions-app, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:10
!topic (2383756) Outdated Package - Still on 48.alpha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:10
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1883
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:23:01
I think we should just skip this one until gnome 49 beta is ready
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:23:10
I assume it's tied to it
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:23:36
Yeah - this was before I found out about issues.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:17
yeah, seems like the source for this one is part of gnome-shell
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:24:21
I orginally raised against F42 but seen it was still the same the dat before freeze.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:24
so they probably have to get bumped together
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:24:35
I orginally raised against F42 but seen it was still the same the day before freeze.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:48
oh, hum, if it's behind on f42 that's definitely a bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:06
but yeah, i don't think this merits an FE alone for f43 beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:51
the next bug up is basically a gnome 48 beta FE proposal
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:26:45
is there a confusion between 48.alpha -> 48.1 and 49.beta (blocked)?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:56
proposed !agreed 2383756 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to punt this one due to the bigger issue that GNOME 48 Beta as a whole is blocked (see next bug). if most of GNOME got unblocked and bumped but this package was still behind, we could consider this one separately
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:05
we would not go to 48.1 on f43 i don't think
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:27:07
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:12
the upgrade path for f43 is to 49
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:27
but yeah, i see i am mixing 48 and 49 up a bit
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:34
so, humm
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:27:37
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:41
maybe we *should* consider this on its own
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:55
still, is there any practical benefit we know of, by updating this to 48.1?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:27:56
No, I ack'd it, no b-"ack"sies
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:28:00
the proposed says 48
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:05
just the version number alone isn't sufficient justification
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:28:05
it should be 49
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:32
Kamil Páral well yes, but Fabio is correct that that means this bug *isn't* entirely subservient to the other one
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:28:40
So this is not about 48-alpha, but 49-alpha?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:47
we could theoretically update this component to 48.1 without worrying about the whole 49 beta mess
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:28:51
this is more of a symptom of the current issues with getting gnome updated right now
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:29:00
yes, that's why I was asking.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:29:05
No - the package in f43 & f42 is still 48.alpha.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:29:07
I'm not fully confused by the numbers, so I'll just ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:21
i don't want to go with the proposal as written, i think it's garbage :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:51
i think the key question right now is "is there a practical benefit we get by bumping gnome-extensions-app to 48 final, 48.1, or 49 alpha"?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:30:13
I think there's a benefit of having gnome-extensions-app in sync with gnome-shell
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:30:40
right nowI can't even find the upstream sources to see which version would be the latest one ...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:04
it uses gnome-shell as its upstream source
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:06
it's a weird package, tbh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:17
i don't understand how it works, and i don't understand why it's not a subpackage of gnome-shell
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:31:26
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/commits/52c517c8f6c199a1d6f5118fae500ef69ea845ae
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:26
the spec file seems like it literally just...builds gnome-shell
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:31:43
ah that explains it ...
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:31:50
It's in gnome-shell under subprojects
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:52
then the %files section lists only a few files, but i don't understand why the build doesn't fail because of all the bits of gnome-shell that aren't packaged...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:32:08
it should be part of gnome-shell
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:32:17
there's no real reason not to build it as part of the gnome-shell source package
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:32:25
🤷
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:28
but anyhoo
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:32:54
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/tree/main/subprojects?ref_type=heads
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:59
i think i'm gonna vote -1 currently on the basis there's no indication that updating this fixes any practical problem
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:14
i could also be ok with punt and request such a justification
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:24
but just 'make version number bigger' is never a reason to grant an fe
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:33:51
I'm happy to withdraw until the winder GNOME49 stuff is sorted out.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:33:55
beta fe -1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:34:01
or withdraw
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:34:06
I'm happy to withdraw until the wider GNOME49 stuff is sorted out.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:27
ok, if you withdraw it i can just info it as withdrawn
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:34:43
betaFE -1
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:34:55
Let's do that.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:02
ok, thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:21
!info 2383756 - the proposer has agreed to withdraw this proposal, so moving on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,1,-5) (+boniboyblue, derekenz, -kparal, -geraldosimiao, -nielsenb, -lruzicka, -adamwill)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+5,0,-0) (+kparal, +geraldosimiao, +nielsenb, +derekenz, +lruzicka)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390023
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!topic (2390023) SELinux blocks GDM from GNOME 49 Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:22
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1889
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:27
so this is effectively an FE request for 49 beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:38
we have 10 days to go/no-go at this point...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:37:17
ugh, I'd really rather not have GNOME 49 alpha for Fedora 43 beta
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:38:01
adamw: note that the 49.rc releases are due (or have already happened), so a FE for beta is already a bit out-of-date
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:13
ok, an FE request for 49 beta or RC. :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:35
i would also rather not have alpha, but i also don't want to delay the beta indefinitely, or stuff in a whole new gnome release at late notice
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:46
we don't have any great choices here :/ especially since the selinux-policy fixes apparently still don't exist
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:39:07
`enforcing=0`
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:39:16
this is kind of the downside of us being the first sometimes :/
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:39:33
the SUSE people haven't started integrating GNOME into openSUSE yet, so they haven't hit the problems yet
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:39:50
though I do think there would be an "easy" workaround (if I understand the problem right)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:39:59
(SUSE distributions also use SELinux enforcing by default now)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:41:13
building gdk-pixbuf2 without the glycin loader should resolve (at least some) sandboxing woes, though I'm not sure if it would resolve *all* of them.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:43
can we try that?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:43:06
I think it should be as easy as making the conditional from [here](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdk-pixbuf2/c/6123dd37fb7d8b8666fab999e25eafa6877ba86c?branch=rawhide) temporarily unconditional.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:43:32
but as I said, I'm not sure if that would resolve *all* selinux / sandboxing issues.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:46
seems like it wouldn't hurt to try
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:52
shame mcatanzaro isn't around
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:13
i think i'm a weak +1 to this if we can get the logjam resolved *soon* and get the update in with still a solid week or so for testing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:22
i really don't want to try and land it last minute
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:44:25
I can try this in a rawhide VM, if it helps, and report back
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:39
well, i can do a scratch build and run openqa on it, also...
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:44:51
kparal gave a cookie to decathorpe. They now have 139 cookies, 18 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:51
though today is actually a holiday in canada so i'm not supposed to be here. :P
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:45:21
today is a holiday in the US too
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:45:26
I'm definitely not supposed to be here :P
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:27
we have the votes to accept this, so...we can go ahead unless anyone is concerned
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:41
ahh, but you're not *paid* to be here. so you're not not supposed to be here either. ;)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:45:50
lol
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:45:52
accept it, pull it in depending on when it gets resolved
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:03
lemme try and wordsmith
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:46:27
pay me :P
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:46:56
hm. reading the bug report again, it seems like the selinux issue is actually caused by something else. so there might be more than one bugs going on. :(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:46
!proposed agreed 2390023 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept in principle that it would be good to update to 49 Beta or 49 RC if the selinux logjam can be resolved or worked around soon and the update available for testing within the next four or five days. beyond that point we would find it risky to try and land a major update and still hit the current planned release date, and may need to refer to FESCo for a release delay, or stick with 49 Alpha
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:48:20
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:48:35
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:48:45
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:48:55
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:56
!agreed 2390023 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept in principle that it would be good to update to 49 Beta or 49 RC if the selinux logjam can be resolved or worked around soon and the update available for testing within the next four or five days. beyond that point we would find it risky to try and land a major update and still hit the current planned release date, and may need to refer to FESCo for a release delay, or stick with 49 Alpha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:42
ok, let's move on to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:46
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:56
!topic (2391242) Firefox slows down significantly when private mode invoked
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:56
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391242
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:56
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1896
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:56
!info Proposed Blocker, firefox, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:50:49
i don't think this has anything to do with private mode
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:02
it's just a bug in recent firefox (possibly only with recent kernel, not sure)
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:51:08
So, this one is weird. I realized that I cannot reproduce it on a clean user profile on the same machine, so it can be problematic.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:11
i've been seeing it consistently on my laptop (silverblue rawhide)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:51:13
It doesn't crash, I don't think I would block on this
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:27
it seems to be triggered by particular page content but i'm not sure quite *what* content yet
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:51:30
great, at least I am not stupid.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:38
when it happens i've just been quitting the browser and starting it again :/
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:51:39
I also used a clean machine when I tried to reproduce it, and didn't
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:52:30
what desktop is this with?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:52:34
Maybe some leftover setting from the past can be causing this. Anyway, there is an upstream bug that will deal with it
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:52:36
Gnome
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:52:44
I haven't observed these on KDE Plasma fwiw
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:52:56
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986254
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:52:57
it might be related to mutter 49 alpha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:24
oh, Lukas, have you tried google meet?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:28
for me it would crash the browser consistently
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:32
chromium is fine
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:53:38
might be similar to how mutter causes chromium and google chrome to stall randomly too when creating tabs/windows
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:53:53
Not yet, I can try it now.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:54:28
iirc both firefox and chromium use skia for drawing things
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:56:12
adamw: I started a Google meeting on that clean profile and nothing happened. It seemed fine.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:28
try on your dirty profile?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:57:53
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:19
anyhoo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:27
it seems too fuzzy at this point
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:32
even though it's annoying the tar out of me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:40
i'd say punt for investigation
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:59:11
This only happen in Private Window?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:59:20
punt +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:45
Christopher Boni no. i think private window is a red herring.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:57
i suspect maybe lukas was consistently opening some specific site that triggers the problem in a private window
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:59:59
I would be on team punt
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:03
so that's why he made the association
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:00:09
punt sounds fine
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:00:34
When I start the computer and open the private window, it happens on a regular basis. However, I have tried to open it now and it did not, maybe it fell back to some other backend, some windows are slower than usual but I could live with that.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:03
was it really happening *just on opening the private window* or on opening the window and trying to go somewhere?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:01:26
Also, when it happens, some graphical things ... like picture slideshows ... are slow as a duck in the grass
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:37
proposed !agreed 2391242 - punt (delay decision) - this is clearly too fuzzy to vote on right now, we need to punt for further investigation to try and nail down the details
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:02:24
I will check tomorrow when I start the computer, when it happens and see in which moment it happens.
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:02:45
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:02:50
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:02:56
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:06
!agreed 2391242 - punt (delay decision) - this is clearly too fuzzy to vote on right now, we need to punt for further investigation to try and nail down the details
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1866
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!topic (2381599) After upgrading gnome-shell to version 49~alpha.1-1.fc43 layout indicator stopped reacting to layout switches by Ctrl-Shift key combination.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-5) (+lruzicka, -adamwill, -kparal, -derekenz, -nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2381599
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-5) (-nielsenb, -derekenz, -kparal, -lruzicka, -adamwill)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:27
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:38
hum, not sure why I didn't do this on the ticket vote, maybe more votes came in during the meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:45
i'm fine with -1 on this one...anyone wanna argue +1 ?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:03:56
no
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:40
i'm also ok with +1 beta fe, though, if the fix is plausible
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:04:42
I think people who need multiple layouts to function with different languages should expect this to work.
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:04:47
I do not argue
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:00
But do we have a criterion that covers the multi-layout language case?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:16
Conan Kudo: this is not the default binding
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:29
It's pretty hard to configure for a general user, also
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:35
does the default binding still work?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:41
the defaults work fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:41
you have to enable a non-gui-accessible gsetting to even use this switcher
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:43
yes it does
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:53
then okay I guess it's fine
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:58
or use the tweak tool
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:06
oh, it's in that? okay.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:06:15
FinalFE +1, why not
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:06:28
but it's hard to find in the tweak tool
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:06:41
if I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't have found it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:47
betafe, not finalfe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:52
no point voting on finalfe right now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:06:57
BetaFE +1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:07:02
BetaFE +1
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:07:04
betaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:07:32
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:21
proposed !agreed 2381599 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as it concerns a non-standard switcher combo that is only usable with a fairly hidden gsetting. However, accepted as a Beta FE as it is a rather annoying bug for someone who *is* used to using this setting, and they could experience it on a live boot, first install, or on upgrade of an existing system during a freeze
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:08:31
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:41
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:08:44
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:08:50
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:09:00
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:49
!agreed 2381599 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as it concerns a non-standard switcher combo that is only usable with a fairly hidden gsetting. However, accepted as a Beta FE as it is a rather annoying bug for someone who is used to using this setting, and they could experience it on a live boot, first install, or on upgrade of an existing system during a freeze
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:01
ok, let's move on and look through:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:05
!topic Accepted Beta blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:16
note the point here is not to re-vote (unless we decide that'd be useful), but to check in on resolution progress
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:26
!info Accepted Blocker, anaconda-webui, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:26
!topic (2388785) [webui] cockpit storage getting hidden on small screens behing non scrollable content
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:26
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388785
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:26
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1873
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:49
looks like we're just waiting on the devs here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:56
it's set to ASSIGNED so katerina is working on it, but nothing to test yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:05
!info this is waiting on anaconda-webui dev team to write a fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:22
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389105
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:22
!info Accepted Blocker, blivet-gui, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:22
!topic (2389105) blivet-gui only show one disk from a mdraid device which was created on two disks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:22
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1878
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:52
looks like we're also waiting on devs here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:54
the PR is still open
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:09
!info the PR for this is still open, so this is also waiting on development team
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:35
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389102
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:35
!info Accepted Blocker, kde-settings, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:35
!topic (2389102) kde-settings update required to enable Fedora 43 backgrounds in KDE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:35
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1871
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:43
Conan Kudo how is this not done yet?!
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:12:54
sigh
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:13:11
because I forgot
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:13:16
I'll deal with it after this meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:23
hehe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:24
thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:42
!info we're also waiting on dev here, this should be a straightforward change. Conan Kudo says he'll deal with it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:15
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1854
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:15
!info Accepted Blocker, libdnf, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:15
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:15
!topic (2354865) libdnf (DNF4) should read DNF5 repo overrides
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:14:37
this just waiting on a backport/release?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:44
!info we're waiting on a new dnf/libdnf release, here. have asked the dev team to expedite it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:47
yup
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:08
i'm kinda inclined to just backport the fix at this point...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:22
!topic (2390900) Some blivet-gui installer dialogs unusable due to placement/sizing bug in Mutter 49 alpha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:22
!info Accepted Blocker, mutter, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:22
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390900
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:22
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1881
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:52
this might be on me to test another possible fix upstream i think
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:13
!info jadahl has suggested a second MR that may fully resolve this problem, adamw will test it soon
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:28
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1870
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:28
!info Accepted Blocker, NetworkManager-openvpn, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:28
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388442
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:28
!topic (2388442) NetworkManager-openvpn 1.12.2-1.fc43: 2FA prompt window does not appear
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:47
looks like we can close this?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:22
!info this is reported fixed in a version of the package that's stable, so we will close it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:50
any other notes on the accepted blockers?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:19:24
no
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:38
!topic Open floor
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:19:41
not so far
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:19:57
nothing frome me
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:20:29
I saw that OpenQA tests for the ARM Minimal image pass again so I wanted to confirm if everything is resolved there adamw
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:14
yes, afaik it is.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:19
actually I do have one thing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:21
we pushed the fix stable.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:21:22
Perfect, thank you
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:34
I'd like to FE merge this: https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/1157
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:22:34
That seems reasonable
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:44
comps doesn't go through the fe process
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:54
it needs a freeze break, though, i think? check with kevin
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:01
that is, an *infra* freeze break
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:01
I don't think it needs a FBR unless we touch infra groups
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:05
people are certainly welcome to note support/opposition in the ticket, though...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:17
since the critpath ones affect infra, the rest don't
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:42
welp, all i know for sure is we don't apply the blocker/fe process to comps changes.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:25:03
well then I'll just merge it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:25:09
thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:18
you can't
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:19
cos i did
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:25:41
thanks :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:52
ok, thanks a lot for coming everyone
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:26:05
thanks
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:26:14
Thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:29
!endmeeting