2025-10-06 16:00:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F43-blocker-review
2025-10-06 16:00:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-10-06 16:00:23 UTC
2025-10-06 16:00:25 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F43-blocker-review'
2025-10-06 16:00:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-10-06 16:00:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ahoyhoy folks, who's around for fun?
2025-10-06 16:01:01 <@kparal:matrix.org> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:03 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
2025-10-06 16:01:05 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2025-10-06 16:01:25 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2025-10-06 16:01:44 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
2025-10-06 16:01:53 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2025-10-06 16:01:58 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-06 16:01:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
2025-10-06 16:02:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-10-06 16:02:19 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-10-06 16:02:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's everyone doing this fine/grey/rainy/puce/inexplicably purple morning? [delete as appropriate]
2025-10-06 16:03:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Of all the days, this is definitely one
2025-10-06 16:04:01 <@kparal:matrix.org> I object against morning
2025-10-06 16:04:07 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> It's amazingly sunny here; for the next 30 minutes, then it's darkness.  But I'm stuck in a meeting
2025-10-06 16:04:07 <@kparal:matrix.org> all mornings, in general, to be exact
2025-10-06 16:04:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> a day of all days indeed
2025-10-06 16:04:09 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It's not bad. Warm inside, tea ready. What else should one want?
2025-10-06 16:04:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> don't you just hate it when that happens
2025-10-06 16:04:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> at university my best friend and I adopted the concept of 'subjective morning'
2025-10-06 16:04:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> still haven't eaten breakfast due to meetings :(
2025-10-06 16:05:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it was morning for three hours after you woke up, whenever that happened to be
2025-10-06 16:05:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo you can eat it now. *we can't see you*
2025-10-06 16:06:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, time for some tasty boilerplate
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Beta_Release_Criteria
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@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.
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2025-10-06 16:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Final_Release_Criteria
2025-10-06 16:06:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have 3 proposed blockers and 2 proposed FEs
2025-10-06 16:06:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2025-10-06 16:06:48 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I do
2025-10-06 16:07:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yay
2025-10-06 16:07:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize
2025-10-06 16:07:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2025-10-06 16:07:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2025-10-06 16:08:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, edk2, NEW
2025-10-06 16:08:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2401623) fedora ISOs will not boot in qemu-kvm using UEFI
2025-10-06 16:08:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401623
2025-10-06 16:08:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1956
2025-10-06 16:08:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-3) (-nielsenb, -kashyapc, -derekenz)
2025-10-06 16:08:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're at -3 on this, but anyone want to argue for +1? i'm pretty solidly -1 on this as the criterion is really meant to catch 'virt is entirely broken', not 'there's a weird quirk with old firmwares'
2025-10-06 16:09:24 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I do not want to argue here, I have not seen any problem on my machines with various hardware.
2025-10-06 16:09:33 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> FinalBlocker -1
2025-10-06 16:09:41 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah; the NUC might even be old?
2025-10-06 16:09:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it appears to be pretty old, yeah.
2025-10-06 16:10:00 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> I didn't yet see the patch that Gerd made w/ a Copr build; I'm curious though.
2025-10-06 16:10:07 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'm not clear how the host firmware can affect the virt guest?
2025-10-06 16:10:17 <@kparal:matrix.org> perhaps a bug in VT-d or something?
2025-10-06 16:11:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> at this point it seems finalblocker -1 , unless we can show that it affects much larger pool of hardware
2025-10-06 16:12:18 <@cmurf:fedora.im> Well for server folks they're used to using way older hardware than this
2025-10-06 16:13:20 <@cmurf:fedora.im> Also the firmware is fairly recent. In any case I think it's a conditional blocker until someone else can reproduce it. I also don't know what the fix entails, why the problem is even happening. It's sorta happenstance I got suspicious of edk2.
2025-10-06 16:13:36 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I doubt that this passes the final blocker smell test.
2025-10-06 16:14:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the change appears to be adding Patch0025: 0025-OvmfPkg-PlatformDxe-add-check-for-1g-page-support.patch
2025-10-06 16:15:00 <@cmurf:fedora.im> OK
2025-10-06 16:15:02 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Okay, some change to upstream EDK2
2025-10-06 16:15:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://paste.centos.org/view/bdd6e726
2025-10-06 16:16:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kinda looks like this might be triggered by having an old shim version?
2025-10-06 16:16:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, well, < 16 is not very old.
2025-10-06 16:16:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> everyone has that version, heh.
2025-10-06 16:16:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but you *also* need to not support 1G page tables, i guess
2025-10-06 16:17:52 <@cmurf:fedora.im> Yeah I have no idea how common that is
2025-10-06 16:17:52 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, seems to be adding 1G page support.  I won't pretend to know the internals of EDK2 here 
2025-10-06 16:17:53 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-06 16:17:55 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2025-10-06 16:17:59 <@cmurf:fedora.im> or if it's even related to firmware version
2025-10-06 16:18:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> who is crazy enough to run x86 at 1GiB page sizes
2025-10-06 16:18:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there's also a `PcdGet64 (PcdConfidentialComputingGuestAttr) == 0)` check in there
2025-10-06 16:18:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we could punt and ask gerd exactly what combination of properties triggers the bug here, and try to assess how widespread that might be?
2025-10-06 16:19:01 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, makes a ton of sense
2025-10-06 16:19:16 <@cmurf:fedora.im> sure
2025-10-06 16:19:39 <@cmurf:fedora.im> Sounds like there is a software fix. It's not like it prevents host boot and therefore doesn't prevent fixing it with an update.
2025-10-06 16:19:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's true too
2025-10-06 16:20:05 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I proposed it as a blocker because we have a criterion. 😆
2025-10-06 16:20:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure. 'we can fix it with an update' doesn't make things not a blocker. (it's actually more of a consideration for FEs)
2025-10-06 16:21:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2401623 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to punt this so we can ask Gerd exactly what combination of properties is necessary to trigger this bug, and make an assessment of how common that's likely to be
2025-10-06 16:21:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:37 <@cmurf:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:38 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:50 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2401623 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to punt this so we can ask Gerd exactly what combination of properties is necessary to trigger this bug, and make an assessment of how common that's likely to be
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+augenauf, +lruzicka, +nielsenb)
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2400488) libdnf context is not reading and enforcing protected packages, causing PackageKit to not honor protected packages settings
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2400488
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1952
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, libdnf, NEW
2025-10-06 16:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +nielsenb)
2025-10-06 16:22:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is at +3 currently, any contrary votes?
2025-10-06 16:23:03 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I have been sitting here trying to reproduce, and can't.
2025-10-06 16:23:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> So I may have to rescind my "easy to walk into it" stance.
2025-10-06 16:23:35 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Got a pretty lightweight "stripper" version of Gnome going here though.
2025-10-06 16:23:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the cause and fix has been identified
2025-10-06 16:24:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there's a reasonable debate about whether it meets the criteria
2025-10-06 16:24:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (and if not, whether they should be updated)
2025-10-06 16:24:17 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Right, but it seems like Gnome software has some kind of filtering / protection of packages of its own.
2025-10-06 16:24:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well, sort of?
2025-10-06 16:24:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> AppStream has a way to define protected components in the spec
2025-10-06 16:25:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Plasma Discover honors this, so you can't uninstall plasma shell
2025-10-06 16:25:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but this requires appstream metainfo files to include these extra properties
2025-10-06 16:25:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and most things don't
2025-10-06 16:26:10 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I acknowledge that, but it seems like enough things do that I at least cannot make Gnome get uninstalled via Gnome software
2025-10-06 16:26:27 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> How about systemd? :)
2025-10-06 16:26:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm not saying it isn't technically possible, but it seems more difficult that the bug report led me to believe
2025-10-06 16:26:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's still bad enough that it's a problem and it should be fixed
2025-10-06 16:27:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean, the criterion applies to dnf
2025-10-06 16:27:20 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I only have like, 8 things left Gnome Software will let me uninstall, system still works
2025-10-06 16:28:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, hmm
2025-10-06 16:28:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as it stands it doesn't. but i think that's an oversight...
2025-10-06 16:28:29 <@derekenz:fedora.im> People do funny stuff sounds right Adam
2025-10-06 16:28:57 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It gives me a button for Anthy, but I can't actually uninstall it
2025-10-06 16:29:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the patch i'd like to suggest is that we adjust the final criterion to clearly also apply to default *non*-graphical package managers, except for things that are gui tool-specific
2025-10-06 16:29:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it seems bizarre we wouldn't have the same requirements for dnf on server or a minimal install
2025-10-06 16:29:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think this may have gotten unhooked when we moved some of the requirements from beta to final, previously this was all one big beta criterion
2025-10-06 16:30:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2025-10-06 16:30:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it should be covered, and I would expect it to be
2025-10-06 16:30:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the fact it isn't is weird
2025-10-06 16:30:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> which one? the one cited in the ticket applies to graphical package managers
2025-10-06 16:30:45 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Not sure how I'd tell, I don't have a terminal or system monitor anymore 🤣
2025-10-06 16:30:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, I think that's a mistake.
2025-10-06 16:31:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as in, we didn't actually mean those requirements not to apply to dnf.
2025-10-06 16:31:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> although i guess you could say we expect a higher level of knowledge from people using dnf directly?
2025-10-06 16:31:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> well since I was the one who proposed the criterion, I can say that I really targeted just graphical package managers 🙂 
2025-10-06 16:31:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh hmm, okay.
2025-10-06 16:32:12 <@kparal:matrix.org> that doesn't mean we can't have dnf covered as well
2025-10-06 16:32:19 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm confused, I thought only packagekit was impacted, because it uses dnf4
2025-10-06 16:32:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> then we can go with one of the other patch proposals, I guess. but i'd agree that on a strict reading of the currnet criteria, it's hard to say this is a blocker
2025-10-06 16:32:29 <@kparal:matrix.org> but the original scope was to ensure gnome-software didn't break horribly
2025-10-06 16:32:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ohh, yes, that too. sorry
2025-10-06 16:32:38 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> As far as I can tell gnome software is fine?
2025-10-06 16:32:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is packagekit via the CLI fine?
2025-10-06 16:32:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, gnome-software has been reverted to PK
2025-10-06 16:32:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and PK always uses dnf4
2025-10-06 16:33:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is packagekit via the CLI blocking? Do we want it to be?
2025-10-06 16:33:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think pkcon is considered the 'default' package manager for anything, so probably no
2025-10-06 16:33:30 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Right, but I can't actually reproduce the bug
2025-10-06 16:33:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> PackageKit is also used by Cockpit
2025-10-06 16:34:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so it affects deliverables that use that
2025-10-06 16:34:34 <@kparal:matrix.org> if people think we should cover protected packages, then I'm +1 blocker. Otherwise probably -1, because... that's implied if people don't want to clarification, right?
2025-10-06 16:34:38 <@kparal:matrix.org> if people think we should cover protected packages, then I'm +1 blocker. Otherwise probably -1, because... that's implied if people don't want the clarification, right?
2025-10-06 16:35:00 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> We definitely should cover protected packages, I believe.
2025-10-06 16:35:45 <@kparal:matrix.org> I also agree that we should somehow unify it with dnf, at least in certain areas, but that's a larger change, and not immediately necessary
2025-10-06 16:35:59 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> So we're blocking on a theoretical / edge case?
2025-10-06 16:36:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it should cover protected packages +1 FinalBlocker
2025-10-06 16:36:08 <@kparal:matrix.org> but if you think it's a better target, I can try propose changes in that sense
2025-10-06 16:36:52 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Oh, wait, I think I broke it!
2025-10-06 16:37:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> congrats?
2025-10-06 16:37:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yay?
2025-10-06 16:37:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I mean, it confirms you can actually walk sideways into a broken system?
2025-10-06 16:38:21 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Interesting the gnome-software seems to hide things from "the big list", but you can find them if you search for them directly...?
2025-10-06 16:38:31 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Interesting that gnome-software seems to hide things from "the big list", but you can find them if you search for them directly...?
2025-10-06 16:38:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how did you break it?
2025-10-06 16:38:57 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> You have to specifically search for a system breaking package that it lets you uninstall
2025-10-06 16:39:19 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> As far as I can tell nothing that appears in the "Installed Software" list will actually break your system if you remove it
2025-10-06 16:40:09 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> cantarell-VF as listed in the bug report works, but I assumed it wasn't installed as it wasn't in my "Installed Software" list
2025-10-06 16:40:22 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> The steps to reproduce weren't real detailed
2025-10-06 16:40:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in general Software and Discover only show things with app metadata
2025-10-06 16:40:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but they do obviously *know* the state of other packages
2025-10-06 16:41:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I guess I'm inclined to stick with my FinalBlocker +1 vote
2025-10-06 16:41:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Criteria need to be adjusted I think
2025-10-06 16:42:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> Brandon Nielsen: so you broke it by searching for abattis-cantarell-vf-fonts? That's exactly the original reproducer
2025-10-06 16:42:17 <@kparal:matrix.org> (and removing them)
2025-10-06 16:42:47 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yes, but it just says "remove catarrell fonts", I didn't even know you could remove software from anywhere but the "installed sofware" list
2025-10-06 16:42:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, i assume the reporter just searched for 'fonts' or something
2025-10-06 16:43:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, hmm, i think software may have some special handling of fonts? not sure
2025-10-06 16:43:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what happens if you search for, i dunno, udev ?
2025-10-06 16:43:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> I reproduced exactly this as well, by searching you can find the font package. That's why I said it's not really easy to trigger this.
2025-10-06 16:44:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> No apps found
2025-10-06 16:44:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hm. ok
2025-10-06 16:44:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> I think there
2025-10-06 16:44:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'm -1 for now...
2025-10-06 16:44:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> there's a exception for fonts in gnome-software
2025-10-06 16:44:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, that's what i just thought of
2025-10-06 16:44:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> they're slotted under Addons or a similar category
2025-10-06 16:46:06 <@kparal:matrix.org> I guess you can get unlucky if you search for something that has metadata and it removes a large chunk of the system with it. But nobody has shown that yet.
2025-10-06 16:46:35 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'm in favor of adding that proposed new wording to the criterion, and then accepting it as a blocker
2025-10-06 16:47:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can go with that, i guess
2025-10-06 16:51:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is everyone else voting for that?
2025-10-06 16:51:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I support that plan as well
2025-10-06 16:52:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-10-06 16:52:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> same FB +1
2025-10-06 16:52:26 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-10-06 16:52:26 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> AddToCriteria +1
2025-10-06 16:52:37 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-10-06 16:52:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2400488 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted on the proviso that we also amend the FInal criterion as proposed by kparal in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1952#comment-988437 . this will be accepted as a violation of that amended criterion
2025-10-06 16:52:41 <@pboy:fedora.im> same FB +1
2025-10-06 16:52:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 16:52:47 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:52:52 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:52:57 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:52:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Kamil Páral , can you send the proposal to test@ and/or discourse for the record?
2025-10-06 16:53:09 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 16:53:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> sure, I will. Is it accepted now or just proposed and we'll see what the feedback is?
2025-10-06 16:53:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> accepted now
2025-10-06 16:53:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> I assume it needs a wider acceptance, honestly
2025-10-06 16:53:45 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> not yet, technically
2025-10-06 16:54:13 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 16:54:17 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It is +5, at least, Kamil Páral 
2025-10-06 16:54:34 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes, but new criteria are not the same as voting for blockers
2025-10-06 16:54:51 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ok, you meant the criteria ...
2025-10-06 16:54:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah. we don't really have a strict rule. it's a vibes-based process
2025-10-06 16:54:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> I would expect at least desktop and dnf teams to get a chance to respond
2025-10-06 16:55:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd say we hold the acceptance until the criteria change has been proposed for at least a day or two, then apply it and formally accept the bug
2025-10-06 16:56:27 <@kparal:matrix.org> sorry, I confused people, I was asking about criteria acceptance, yes. I think this bug can actually be accepted immediately, with the assumption that the criterion change goes through. If it doesn't, we'll flip it back to proposed. Wdyt?
2025-10-06 16:56:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's fine
2025-10-06 16:56:49 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Yeah, I agree.
2025-10-06 16:56:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think we generally are accepting this as blocker
2025-10-06 16:58:11 <@kparal:matrix.org> sounds fine to me
2025-10-06 16:58:21 <@kparal:matrix.org> I'll send the criterion proposal tomorrow
2025-10-06 17:00:06 <@kparal:matrix.org> adamw: ready when you are
2025-10-06 17:02:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-10-06 17:02:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sorry, i was yelling at clouds
2025-10-06 17:02:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2400488 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted on the proviso that we also amend the FInal criterion as proposed by kparal in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1952#comment-988437 . this will be accepted as a violation of that amended criterion
2025-10-06 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-3) (-kparal, -derekenz, -nielsenb)
2025-10-06 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2363937) Version upgrade from Fedora 41 to 42 disables postfix.service
2025-10-06 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2363937
2025-10-06 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1957
2025-10-06 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
2025-10-06 17:03:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, well, this one looks...pretty bad. but we're not sure what's going on yet, and it seems like it might not even be specific to upgrades...
2025-10-06 17:03:58 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, is it the sbin -> bin change?  I wonder...
2025-10-06 17:04:20 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> It is definitely annoying, as a former Postfix user (I used to run a postfix server on my laptop; don't ask, I know)
2025-10-06 17:04:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the postfix scriptlets are weird
2025-10-06 17:05:13 <@pboy:fedora.im> I guess it is a case for common bugs?
2025-10-06 17:05:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo but if it also affects nftables, that kinda points at rpm or systemd
2025-10-06 17:05:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because nftables only uses the macros
2025-10-06 17:05:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> possibly, yes, common bugs. Once we know what's going on.
2025-10-06 17:06:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll try and do some testing on this later
2025-10-06 17:06:56 <@pboy:fedora.im> We have a similiar issue with postfix not getting the interfaces and fail zu startup after boot (in a VM).
2025-10-06 17:07:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's not a similar issue at all, if the service actually starts.
2025-10-06 17:07:50 <@pboy:fedora.im> OK, then another issue
2025-10-06 17:07:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> brb, call of nature
2025-10-06 17:12:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so yeah...as things stand it's hard to accept this, but it does worry me
2025-10-06 17:14:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other thoughts?
2025-10-06 17:14:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do we want to reject or punt?
2025-10-06 17:15:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Punt?
2025-10-06 17:16:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is there really a criteria for this?
2025-10-06 17:16:49 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Maybe we can wait a week and see if any SNI (significant new information) emerges
2025-10-06 17:16:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, depends on how many services it affects, whether it can affect anything in a default install
2025-10-06 17:16:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd kinda like to investigate it more
2025-10-06 17:17:05 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Fair enough
2025-10-06 17:17:30 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 punt
2025-10-06 17:18:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Punt +1
2025-10-06 17:19:04 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Punt
2025-10-06 17:19:07 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> +1
2025-10-06 17:19:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2363937 - punt (delay decision) - this doesn't look like it violates the criteria so far, but we would like to look into it more before making a final decision
2025-10-06 17:19:43 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:19:58 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:19:58 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:20:36 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:22:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 17:23:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2363937 - punt (delay decision) - this doesn't look like it violates the criteria so far, but we would like to look into it more before making a final decision
2025-10-06 17:23:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, moving on to
2025-10-06 17:23:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,3,-0) (+asciiwolf, kparal, geraldosimiao, nielsenb)
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2388961) glycin backend saving jpg format with alpha channel does not work at all
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388961
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1949
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gdk-pixbuf2, NEW
2025-10-06 17:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-6) (-kparal, -kashyapc, -derekenz, -geraldosimiao, -nielsenb, -boniboyblue)
2025-10-06 17:23:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on the whole, i'd be -1 without a clear justification here. seems safer to do it as an update if at all
2025-10-06 17:25:15 <@kparal:matrix.org> In #workstation:fedoraproject.org Matthias Clasen pointed out that this would be a good bug to test by testers during gnome test days. So they clearly care a lot about it. Just nobody bothered to explains to us why it is so important.
2025-10-06 17:26:26 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Shall we wait until the Test day is over?
2025-10-06 17:26:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> heh
2025-10-06 17:26:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> did he say specifically what he wanted people to test?
2025-10-06 17:29:32 <@kparal:matrix.org> no
2025-10-06 17:30:01 <@kparal:matrix.org> I don't think testers are able to do it anyway, this seems more developer-oriented
2025-10-06 17:30:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, that's why i was confused
2025-10-06 17:30:40 <@kparal:matrix.org> just punt or -1, in my view
2025-10-06 17:30:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if there is some app usage scenario where this is exposed
2025-10-06 17:30:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> open and re-save random jpegs in...what, loupe?
2025-10-06 17:31:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'm -1 for now. we can always revote with a justification
2025-10-06 17:31:18 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> The JXL in the bug report breaks when saved with Firefox
2025-10-06 17:31:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> "Opening images in an image viewer helps. Also, reporting buttons/widgets with missing icons and such."
2025-10-06 17:31:32 <@kparal:matrix.org> from https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/829#comment-987088 and below
2025-10-06 17:31:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But ultimately I'm not sure how big of a deal that is
2025-10-06 17:34:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> why would buttons/widgets with missing icons be caused by this bug? i'm more confused now. :D
2025-10-06 17:34:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe things are actually broken at the load stage, not the save stage, i guess?
2025-10-06 17:35:45 <@kparal:matrix.org> I think they generally just look for regressions in the image processing library
2025-10-06 17:36:22 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Actually, the JXL in the bug report doesn't work on my F42 machine either...
2025-10-06 17:36:46 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> missing icons are just very visible, and failing to save a file is potentially a data loss...
2025-10-06 17:38:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Matthias Clasen right, but do they relate to *this bug specifically*?
2025-10-06 17:38:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or are you just asking for people to look out for image issues in general?
2025-10-06 17:38:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're trying to decide whether *this bug specifically* should get an FE
2025-10-06 17:38:45 <@kparal:matrix.org> Ah, I thought you weren't in the room, because I tried to tag "@mcl<tab>" and it didn't work 🙂 
2025-10-06 17:38:55 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> I feel responsible for it because I started this whole migration
2025-10-06 17:39:21 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> I think we are in ok shape now, though
2025-10-06 17:40:41 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> I believe this bug in particular is already fixed
2025-10-06 17:40:48 <@matthiasc:gnome.org> it was reported against glycin 2.0.0
2025-10-06 17:41:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're waiting for the reporter to reply to the last comment i guess
2025-10-06 17:41:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we could needinfo
2025-10-06 17:42:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but ok, i'm gonna stick with -1
2025-10-06 17:42:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> other votes?
2025-10-06 17:42:42 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I remain -1
2025-10-06 17:42:52 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Still -1
2025-10-06 17:43:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> any future bugs can request a new FE, -1
2025-10-06 17:43:59 <@pboy:fedora.im> Well, someone is actively working on it.  Shouldn't punt?  
2025-10-06 17:44:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's not relevant to deciding whether it justifies an FE
2025-10-06 17:45:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2388961 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - there's still been no clear rationale for why this bug as described would justify a freeze exception. we will reconsider this decision if any such justification appears
2025-10-06 17:45:27 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:45:33 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 17:45:44 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:46:00 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:46:25 <@pboy:fedora.im> nack
2025-10-06 17:46:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2388961 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - there's still been no clear rationale for why this bug as described would justify a freeze exception. we will reconsider this decision if any such justification appears
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2400488) libdnf context is not reading and enforcing protected packages, causing PackageKit to not honor protected packages settings
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2400488
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +nielsenb)
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+augenauf, +lruzicka, +nielsenb)
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libdnf, NEW
2025-10-06 17:47:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1952
2025-10-06 17:47:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, wait, we accepted this provisionally as a blocker, right
2025-10-06 17:47:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> yes
2025-10-06 17:47:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but...i think we could also accept it as an FE just in case the blocker status falls through somehow
2025-10-06 17:47:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm +1 FE
2025-10-06 17:48:16 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 FE
2025-10-06 17:48:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Sure
2025-10-06 17:48:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalFE +1
2025-10-06 17:48:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE
2025-10-06 17:49:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2400488 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this was provisionally accepted as a blocker earlier, but we also definitely accept it as an FE, just in case the blocker status ultimately falls through somehow. It's definitely a big enough problem, and one you could potentially face on first boot, that we would like it fixed for release even if it's not a blocker
2025-10-06 17:49:42 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-10-06 17:49:45 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:49:48 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:50:25 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-06 17:50:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2400488 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this was provisionally accepted as a blocker earlier, but we also definitely accept it as an FE, just in case the blocker status ultimately falls through somehow. It's definitely a big enough problem, and one you could potentially face on first boot, that we would like it fixed for release even if it's not a blocker
2025-10-06 17:50:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright, let's quickly go through:
2025-10-06 17:50:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2025-10-06 17:50:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2387466
2025-10-06 17:50:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2387466) Fedora 43: Server boot aarch64 image exceeds maximum size
2025-10-06 17:50:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, distribution, ASSIGNED
2025-10-06 17:50:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1869
2025-10-06 17:51:14 <@pboy:fedora.im> Sorry, I have no detail information yet. I was working with Petr Bokoc to propose a Council Community Initiative to revitalize Docs. Kind of a last attempt to save Fedora Docs. Our deadline is tonight.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to do anything else in Fedora this past week. Just tested in parallel here, the situation remains unchanged with the latest build. Neither workstation nor minimal boot. Therefore, I suggest postponing this until next week when I have more information. 
2025-10-06 17:51:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ?
2025-10-06 17:51:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think you meant that for another bug?
2025-10-06 17:51:55 <@pboy:fedora.im> OH sorry, ! my  eyes 
2025-10-06 17:52:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for this one, we just need https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d2a4ad264a to go stable
2025-10-06 17:52:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if folks can check and karma it, that'd be great
2025-10-06 17:52:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> You can build an image yourself, or verify that openQA did one and it worked, or eyeball the change - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lorax/c/f46393ae32461a10a936776532ef3eea7b0ca630?branch=f43
2025-10-06 17:54:03 <@pboy:fedora.im> That's on my list, too. 
2025-10-06 17:57:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks
2025-10-06 17:57:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this should be fixed when https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d2a4ad264a goes stable, please test and karma
2025-10-06 17:58:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1925
2025-10-06 17:58:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, dracut, MODIFIED
2025-10-06 17:58:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394213
2025-10-06 17:58:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2394213) default hostonly-mode "sloppy" results in significant increase in initramfs size
2025-10-06 17:58:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it looks like we got some comparisons
2025-10-06 17:59:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and the current f43 build still gives bigger images than dracut 105 did
2025-10-06 17:59:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394213#c37
2025-10-06 18:00:32 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> ```
2025-10-06 18:00:32 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> If anyone else, like me, is wondering, "host-only":
2025-10-06 18:00:32 <@kashyapc:fedora.im>                          booting the local host instead of a generic host
2025-10-06 18:00:32 <@kashyapc:fedora.im>   -H, --hostonly        Host-only mode: Install only what is needed for
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im>   -H, --hostonly        Host-only mode: Install only what is needed for
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> If anyone else, like me, is wondering about "host-only":
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> ```
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im>                          booting the local host instead of a generic host
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> ```
2025-10-06 18:00:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> 
2025-10-06 18:01:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's rather more complicated than that, though.
2025-10-06 18:01:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you kinda have to read the whole upstream issue to understand all the context.
2025-10-06 18:01:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> I see, I did not read it
2025-10-06 18:02:27 <@cmurf:fedora.im> yeah it's a little complicated
2025-10-06 18:02:40 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> I see, I did not read it yet :)
2025-10-06 18:02:48 <@cmurf:fedora.im> in some sense if it were a lot more complicated it would become much simpler
2025-10-06 18:03:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, sigh. except i just noticed that testing doesn't actually include the relevant backport
2025-10-06 18:04:07 <@cmurf:fedora.im> no that seems to have been forgotten about amidst the f42 issue and f43 blocker
2025-10-06 18:04:32 <@cmurf:fedora.im> kinda why a while ago i thought about cloning the bug to keep them separate but alas...
2025-10-06 18:06:02 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i think there is a real possibility systems with 1 GiB boot, with nvidia gpu, will run into upgrade issues
2025-10-06 18:06:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll have to see if i can test it myself, i guess
2025-10-06 18:06:56 <@cmurf:fedora.im> like, if something bad is going to happen, how do we want to break people's systems? 😛
2025-10-06 18:07:19 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i also don't know all the failure modes/behaviors off the top of my head
2025-10-06 18:07:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this is still kinda stuck. we're still waiting for pvalena to make *any* change for F43 - for some reason, he applied https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dracut/c/97f1cfa5b57c8a84b2c01de10d7c59e91091799b?branch=f42 to F42, but not to F43 - and we're still waiting for tests of whether that change is sufficient to return image sizes to what they were with dracut 105, ignoring growth caused by changes to nvidia firmware
2025-10-06 18:07:49 <@cmurf:fedora.im> the initamfs is created in /var/tmp (?) and then copied to /boot - and then the bootloader saved entry in grubenv is updated (?) 
2025-10-06 18:07:53 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Heh, now I see glimpses of it.  They seem to use "sloppy" to refer to legacy mode.  What a ... sloppy term :D
2025-10-06 18:08:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, that's not exactly it either
2025-10-06 18:08:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the whole thing is a mess
2025-10-06 18:08:12 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i'd like to think that the critical part of that, the bootloader being switched to a newer kernel, only happens after for sure the initramfs is on /boot
2025-10-06 18:09:16 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Oh, yeah; I was not referring to that being the problem. Just couldn't resist remarking on this "interface". Bad me
2025-10-06 18:10:08 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i think it's more likely that regular updates to Fedora 43 are what will be a problem, not major version upgrades - I say that because the problem is currently being reduced as time goes on, for existing Fedora 42 systems - so they should have more space by the time they system upgrade; whereas once they have Fedora 43 they will start making bigger initramfs's
2025-10-06 18:10:50 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I also think most folks do not recreate their rescue initramfs, so most folks will have the smaller rescue initramfs containing older ndvidia and amd gpu firmware and thus much smaller rescue initramfs
2025-10-06 18:11:03 <@cmurf:fedora.im> therefore, the magic 8 balls says...
2025-10-06 18:11:06 <@cmurf:fedora.im> try again later
2025-10-06 18:12:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, we can just note this and keep trucking on it
2025-10-06 18:12:36 <@cmurf:fedora.im> surely we need the upstream revert for dracut-107 in Fedora 43, I don't know if we need more reverts
2025-10-06 18:12:43 <@cmurf:fedora.im> it doesn't have to be perfect it just needs to not be a disaster
2025-10-06 18:12:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1943
2025-10-06 18:12:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2397086) Drop-down menus not working over RDP in Anaconda
2025-10-06 18:12:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, gnome-remote-desktop, NEW
2025-10-06 18:12:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2397086
2025-10-06 18:12:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did not get any time to look at this
2025-10-06 18:12:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone else?
2025-10-06 18:13:17 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Me either, I've been meaning to
2025-10-06 18:14:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks kamil
2025-10-06 18:16:55 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> What do you mean? I see comments from you in the bug, you seem to have at least cursorily looked at it :)
2025-10-06 18:17:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean since last week
2025-10-06 18:17:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we're waiting for some kind of dev input or debugging suggestions on this. we've asked the workstation group to take a look at it
2025-10-06 18:17:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2396309
2025-10-06 18:17:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1937
2025-10-06 18:17:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2396309) Radxa Rock Pi 4 and Pine64 RockPro64 boards fail to boot with Kiwi-produced images, probably all RockChip models
2025-10-06 18:17:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, kiwi, ON_QA
2025-10-06 18:18:07 <@pboy:fedora.im> That's me with my previous post to delay.
2025-10-06 18:18:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay.
2025-10-06 18:19:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that was: "Sorry, I have no detail information yet. I was working with Petr Bokoc to propose a Council Community Initiative to revitalize Docs. Kind of a last attempt to save Fedora Docs. Our deadline is tonight. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to do anything else in Fedora this past week. Just tested in parallel here, the situation remains unchanged with the latest build. Neither workstation nor minimal boot. Therefore, I suggest postponing this until next week when I have more information. "
2025-10-06 18:19:18 <@pboy:fedora.im> Yes.
2025-10-06 18:19:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you can provide more specific and precise information on exactly how/why each fails to boot, that'd be great
2025-10-06 18:19:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> then we can decide whether to split them into new bugs or what
2025-10-06 18:20:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) says there are still issues with both minimal and workstation boot on affected devices, he will provide more detailed information this week
2025-10-06 18:20:49 <@pboy:fedora.im> I have to connect a seriell terminal. That provides detailed information.
2025-10-06 18:21:07 <@pboy:fedora.im> I have to connect a seriell terminal. That provides detailed information on these kind of devices.
2025-10-06 18:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2394561) SELinux is preventing systemd from 'open' accesses on the file /tmp/webui-cockpit-ws.env.
2025-10-06 18:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1922
2025-10-06 18:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, VERIFIED
2025-10-06 18:21:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394561
2025-10-06 18:22:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info looks like the fix here is verified and we just need to get the update pushed stable
2025-10-06 18:22:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright, that's the crop
2025-10-06 18:22:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2025-10-06 18:22:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business?
2025-10-06 18:23:20 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Not on blockers from me 
2025-10-06 18:23:39 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Not from me
2025-10-06 18:23:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Nope
2025-10-06 18:25:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nothing fro me
2025-10-06 18:25:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nothing from me
2025-10-06 18:26:07 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I do not have anything.
2025-10-06 18:26:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, thanks for coming everyone!
2025-10-06 18:27:01 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Thanks for running!
2025-10-06 18:27:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Thanks Adam!
2025-10-06 18:27:53 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Thanky youky
2025-10-06 18:28:30 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Bye
2025-10-06 18:28:45 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Bye
2025-10-06 18:28:52 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Bye
2025-10-06 18:31:11 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> adamw:  endmeeting?
2025-10-06 18:34:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, thought i did it
2025-10-06 18:34:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting