#blocker-review:fedoraproject.org log

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:00:09

!startmeeting F44-blocker-review

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:10

Meeting started at 2026-02-16 17:00:09 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:10

The Meeting name is 'F44-blocker-review'

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:00:13

!topic Roll Call

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:00:20

who's here for the first round of F44 blocker review fun?!

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:00:36

!hi

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:00:38

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:40

Petr Sklenar (psklenar)

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:41

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:00:44

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:45

Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:01:17

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:23

Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:01:42

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:43

Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:02:38

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:02:39

Peter Boy (pboy)

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:02:52

hi hi everyone

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:03:56

!hi

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:03:56

okey dokey, impending boilerplate alert

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:57

Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)

<@patrikp:matrix.org>

17:03:57

Hi.

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!topic Introduction

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

Why are we here?

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!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>

17:04:02

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!info The bugs up for review today are available at:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!info We'll be following the process outlined at:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:02

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:30

!info for Beta, we have:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:31

!info 2 Accepted Blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:31

!info 1 Proposed Blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:40

!info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:40

!info 5 Accepted Freeze Exceptions

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:45

!info for Final, we have:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:57

!info 3 Proposed Blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:04:57

!info 2 Accepted Blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:05:09

who wants to secretarialize?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:05:14

here I am

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:05:25

thanks Lukas

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:05:35

!info Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:16

let's start with:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:19

!topic Proposed Beta blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:31

thanks to everyone for voting async, we just have one left

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:42

!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:42

!topic (2438907) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_wayland_popup_grab_finish(): gnome-shell killed by SIGSEGV

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:42

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2438907

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:42

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2036

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:42

!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +psklenar)

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:06:54

so, Shell crashing is obviously Bad(tm), but what criterion does this violate?

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:07:22

for final we can (and historically have) argued the 'don't eat user data' criterion to cover shell crashes that aren't covered any other way, but that's a final criterion, not beta

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:07:29

Basic functionality of applications? This manifests in Decibells, Video player, etc

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:07:39

there's no 'basic functionality of applications' for beta

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:07:52

the beta criteria were fairly specifically written to require enough for you to be able to update the system and not much more

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:07:58

the it destroys unsaved data

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:01

that's final

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:07

don't use a Beta if your data is important

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:08:16

So, let's move it final then.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:08:22

how often does this happen? I haven't seen it yet

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:34

oh, wait

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:08:39

well, could it crash in a way that results in a failed install? it seems to be related to any kind of popup focus

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:43

data corruption is beta, i remembered wrong

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:45

so we can argue that

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:08:51

like this is pretty severe

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:08:51

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria#Data_corruption

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:08:53

I didn't really understand the report so that's why I never voted.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:08:57

Often, when you start fiddling with some buttons -> increase and decrease volume in Decibells.

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:09:00

(though it does have the 'common issues' get out clause)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:09:32

it can happen with anything that involves focus->unfocus of a popup, which is pretty much all gtk menus and web based forms

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:09:33

i don't think it could fail an install since install uses firefox which is likely unaffected?

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:09:53

i've never seen this crash so i don't think it's affecting web chrome...

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:10:08

I have not seen it in any of the browsers.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:10:18

I guess it depends on what firefox uses to draw its popups

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:10:31

chrome does its own thing which probably avoids this, but I don't know whether firefox is the same

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:10:33

nice, I just reproduced the crash

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:10:50

But, yes, it happens with pop-up elements in applications quite often.

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:11:14

so, we can use the data criterion, since it's beta.

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:11:20

i don't see anything else would really apply

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:11:29

actually it's not a race, it doesn't seem to. Just make a popup and unfocus it -> crash

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:11:52

there's a fix for it

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:11:56

!link https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/4886

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:12:13

adamw: this could apply: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Window_manager_functionality

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:12:28

unfocusing a window is a WM functionality

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:12:33

yeah, the WM criterion needs updating for the Wayland world

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:12:42

a lot more stuff is the responsibility of the compositor now

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:13:01

Yup, was just going to throw out that criteria

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:13:03

hmm, i guess we could argue that yeah...

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:13:13

depends if you call this a 'window', but it's probably close enough

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:13:15

Conan Kudo: what exactly is wrong with it? The "window manager" term?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:13:31

the applications run in windows :D

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:13:49

the description seems fine regardless of the title

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:14:19

Kamil Páral: probably just adding the word compositor to the mix so that people know it counts

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:14:31

proposed !agreed 2438907 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "For each release-blocking desktop, the desktop environment must perform regular operations like windows close/resize/maximize/minimize/fullscreen (when supported/applicable), windows switching, and similar common operations as expected"

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:14:43

my reproducer: in nautilus, go to any subfolder, right click on the < back arrow in title bar, that spawns a popup, and then click on desktop. Tada, crash

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:14:46

Did we vote?

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:14:48

since it seems like nobody's actually -1 on this

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:14:52

Fair

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:14:54

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:14:59

+1 beta blocker

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:15:00

+1 BB

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:15:06

Brandon Nielsen it has +2 in the app and i was figuring there was at least enough +1 sentiment here to count for one more :D

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:15:07

BetaBlocker +1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:15:08

+1 BB

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:15:10

I'm +1 now I know what it all means.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:15:11

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:15:22

ack

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:15:45

Petr Sklenar will need to work on his descriptions being more... descriptive 😉

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:16:03

!agreed 2438907 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "For each release-blocking desktop, the desktop environment must perform regular operations like windows close/resize/maximize/minimize/fullscreen (when supported/applicable), windows switching, and similar common operations"

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:16:25

let's move on to:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:16:28

!topic Proposed Final blockers

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:17:06

oh, wait, they're all automatic, just the tool doesn't flag those for...reasons

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:17:26

!info there are no Final blockers requiring voting - they're all image size issues which are actually automatic, I just didn't get around to processing them yet

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:17:31

so let's move on to:

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:17:38

!topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:07

!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-6) (-nielsenb, -catanzaro, -derekenz, -boniboyblue, -adamwill, -psklenar)

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:07

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2026

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:07

!topic (2437985) VPN connection require "sudo" permissions

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:07

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2437985

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:07

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, NetworkManager, NEW

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:21

this was rejected as a blocker by ticket vote, but I proposed it as an FE as it *is* annoying

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:18:32

I figure if we can get it improved for beta we should

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:18:40

+1 for BetaFE

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:18:45

+1 BetaFE

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:18:57

hah. I have a dupe I guess...

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:19:00

(this is a stupid bug to ship with, but we don't have criteria for the case of "half-broken")

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:19:11

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432442

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:19:18

BetaFE +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:20:08

BFE +1

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:20:36

proposed !agreed 2437985 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's a pretty annoying experience for VPN users and it would clearly be better to ship with it fixed if safely possible

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:33

ack

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:21:36

ack

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:21:42

ack

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:21:47

ack

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:22:07

ack

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:22:14

!agreed 2437985 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's a pretty annoying experience for VPN users and it would clearly be better to ship with it fixed if safely possible

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:02

!topic (2440208) [Kinoite] Plasma Login issue with rawhide rebase

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:02

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440208

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:02

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2037

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:02

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-login-manager, NEW

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:02

!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+boniboyblue, +ngompa)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:23:28

nobody knows what's going on with this, but it should be fixed if we can figure out what's borked

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:35

yeah, on the face of it i'm +1

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:23:51

we can always re-evaluate if further testing changes the picture

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:24:05

just please be careful that any fix doesn't affect release-blocking KDE

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:24:33

Has something to do with an entry being missing from /etc/shadow it seems.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:24:50

well that's definitely not in my realm

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:25:13

BFE +1

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:25:41

BetaFE +1

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:25:48

oh, man, is this more shadow 4.19 stuff?!

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:26:09

it changed a lot, but this may *most likely* be selinux issues, if anything is operating on a chroot at least

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:26:20

probably 😅

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:26:24

it changed a lot, but this may *most likely* be selinux issues, if using a shadow util on a different root with -R at least

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:26:54

afaik the atomic desktops still use traditional anaconda-y stuff

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:28:58

well, this is about rebase failing when fresh install works, so it's probably not anaconda

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:29:00

but hey, who knows

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:29:10

we don't have to debug it live

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:29:46

(it might still be because of how the ostrees are made)

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:29:47

Meeting topic changed to live debug

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:29:52

proposed !agreed 2440208 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as an FE as a significant upgrade issue for a non-blocking configuration (Kinoite), we just ask that care be taken that any fix doesn't affect any release-blocking KDE configuration

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:29:52

but yeah, later :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:02

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:30:02

ack

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:13

ack

<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>

17:30:40

ack

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:30:50

!agreed 2440208 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as an FE as a significant upgrade issue for a non-blocking configuration (Kinoite), we just ask that care be taken that any fix doesn't affect any release-blocking KDE configuration

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:31:34

aaaand...I think that's it?

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:31:42

!topic Open floor

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:31:49

good job everyone, that was painless

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:31:56

did I miss anything?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:33:04

well, the openqa tests are randomly failing a lot

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:33:09

no idea why tho

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:33:36

for...various reasons

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:33:45

it's a lot better than it was, though

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:34:09

the *biggest* one was https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/4608 which carlos fixed after i bisected it for two days

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:35:33

now we just have a few identifiable flakes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402533 , https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439826 , https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/2601 - and the occasional thing that's just a bitflip or a longstanding flake i haven't got around to poking into yet (like how freeipa server deployment sometimes just...fails)

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:35:34

I just filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440238

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:36:33

oh hey my old friend xdp timeouts, you're back, this time in a gnome-y flavor

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:37:08

if it makes sense to report it upstream, I can

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:37:44

i think it's worthwhile

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:37:48

worst case it gets closed/ignored

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:38:46

(this used to be a big problem on kde because the different backends would conflict and break things)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:39:05

everyone but gnome has to ship at least two portal backends, and xdp doesn't really do a good job of handling that

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:39:31

so I'm surprised this issue crops up now with gnome, since it technically _shouldn't_ be a thing

<@farchord:fedora.im>

17:39:43

Mmmm did you talk about the mariadb issue?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:40:03

oh hey Workstation ships two portal backends too

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:40:07

xdp-gtk and xdp-gnome

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:40:08

it's accepted as a final blocker, on ticket votes

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:40:13

so it might be the same issue

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:40:13

we could make it a beta FE too I guess?

<@farchord:fedora.im>

17:40:15

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:40:28

i can propose it and we can just do a ticket vote i guess

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:41:18

it's done that for years, though.

<@farchord:fedora.im>

17:41:22

Otherwise, I've been using F44 for a bit and it seems decent once those bugs get ironed out. Some apps no longer works, but not release blocking

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:41:41

i proposed it as a beta fe, should show up for ticket votes on the next refresh

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:42:02

yeah, but who knows? maybe something changed in xdp

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:43:29

alrighty, i guess we're done

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:43:34

thanks for coming out, everyone!

<@adamwill:fedora.im>

17:47:50

!endmeeting