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