2026-03-30 16:00:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F44-blocker-review
2026-03-30 16:00:52 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2026-03-30 16:00:51 UTC
2026-03-30 16:00:52 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F44-blocker-review'
2026-03-30 16:00:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2026-03-30 16:01:52 <@jgroman:fedora.im> !hi
2026-03-30 16:02:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jaroslav Groman (jgroman)
2026-03-30 16:02:05 <@jcline:fedora.im> !hi
2026-03-30 16:02:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jeremy Cline (jcline) - he / him / his
2026-03-30 16:02:18 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2026-03-30 16:02:19 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2026-03-30 16:02:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's everyone doing, ready for blocker fun?
2026-03-30 16:02:50 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> !hi
2026-03-30 16:02:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
2026-03-30 16:02:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2026-03-30 16:02:59 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Reddy for the meeting.
2026-03-30 16:03:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2026-03-30 16:04:07 <@kparal:matrix.org> !hi
2026-03-30 16:04:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
2026-03-30 16:04:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get rolling
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@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.
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria
2026-03-30 16:05:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria
2026-03-30 16:05:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2026-03-30 16:05:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Accepted Blockers
2026-03-30 16:05:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Proposed Blockers
2026-03-30 16:05:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2026-03-30 16:05:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2026-03-30 16:06:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2026-03-30 16:08:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> I can
2026-03-30 16:09:13 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I can, too
2026-03-30 16:09:37 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> But if Kamil wants it
2026-03-30 16:10:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hehe
2026-03-30 16:10:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info kparal and/or lruzicka can fight over secretary duties
2026-03-30 16:11:04 <@kparal:matrix.org> I yield!
2026-03-30 16:11:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's get started with:
2026-03-30 16:11:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2026-03-30 16:11:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2451701
2026-03-30 16:11:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2082
2026-03-30 16:11:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2451701) ngtcp2-crypto-gnutls-1.21.0-1.fc43.aarch64 requires ngtcp2(aarch-64) = 1.21.0-1.fc43, but none of the providers can be installed
2026-03-30 16:11:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, ngtcp2, NEW, depends on other bugs
2026-03-30 16:14:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this one's interesting because openQA tests don't see the same as Petr
2026-03-30 16:14:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> I don't know why not
2026-03-30 16:14:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in openQA, dnf downgrades ngtcp2 packages and the upgrade succeeds, which is what I'd expect
2026-03-30 16:15:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in any case, the update is stable now so this particular issue ought to be resolved, but i'd love to know why we got different results
2026-03-30 16:17:40 <@kparal:matrix.org> he uses aarch64, that might be a difference?
2026-03-30 16:17:57 <@kparal:matrix.org> also he's using TMT-provisioned machines which have some kind of extra repo added
2026-03-30 16:18:08 <@kparal:matrix.org> also he uses TMT-provisioned machines which have some kind of extra repo added
2026-03-30 16:18:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the openQA test i referred to is aarch654
2026-03-30 16:18:33 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I linked a bug which also prevents upgrades and which happened on x86_64. 
2026-03-30 16:18:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the openQA test i referred to is aarch64
2026-03-30 16:18:59 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> In my case, the situation cannot be fixed with `--enable-repo=updates-testing`
2026-03-30 16:19:17 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It only happens on DVD, not on Netinst.
2026-03-30 16:19:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is that with this same package?
2026-03-30 16:19:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if not, it's a different bug and we'll get to it
2026-03-30 16:19:45 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> No, a different one. But I haven't proposed it as a blocker.
2026-03-30 16:19:58 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2452216
2026-03-30 16:20:33 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I have a theory that openQA does not hit, because it starts from a kickstarted installation and not from a Live or DVD ISO.
2026-03-30 16:20:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, that one. it works with --allowerasing , right? i think that makes it not a blocker.
2026-03-30 16:20:50 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I have a theory that openQA does not hit it, because it starts from a kickstarted installation and not from a Live or DVD ISO.
2026-03-30 16:21:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> openQA tries with --allowerasing if the upgrade fails without it, but i think i checked and it doesn't actually hit that path atm, so still a mystery
2026-03-30 16:21:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo
2026-03-30 16:21:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for this bug: I propose we punt and ask petr to re-check, as it should be fixed
2026-03-30 16:22:01 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Punt
2026-03-30 16:22:14 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> +1 punt
2026-03-30 16:22:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> punt +1
2026-03-30 16:24:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> wfm
2026-03-30 16:24:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2451701 - punt (delay decision) - in theory we'd like to clarify why Petr's testing and openQA got different results, but in practice we suspect this is now fixed anyway because the update is now stable. So we'll just ask Petr to re-test and expect the result to be "it's fine now" and the bug to be closed
2026-03-30 16:25:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 16:25:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2026-03-30 16:25:42 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 16:26:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2451701 - punt (delay decision) - in theory we'd like to clarify why Petr's testing and openQA got different results, but in practice we suspect this is now fixed anyway because the update is now stable. So we'll just ask Petr to re-test and expect the result to be "it's fine now" and the bug to be closed
2026-03-30 16:27:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+asciiwolf)
2026-03-30 16:27:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, plasma-keyboard, NEW
2026-03-30 16:27:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2081
2026-03-30 16:27:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2449945
2026-03-30 16:27:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2449945) KDE editor (kwrite, kate...) corrupts text on selection
2026-03-30 16:30:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2026-03-30 16:30:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> disabling on-screen keyboard entirely seems sort of a radical 'solution'
2026-03-30 16:30:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (and has significant consequences for tablets and a11y)
2026-03-30 16:30:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we don't have to litigate it here i guess
2026-03-30 16:30:38 <@kparal:matrix.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
2026-03-30 16:30:38 <@kparal:matrix.org> for text editor and file manager, at least
2026-03-30 16:31:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, +1
2026-03-30 16:32:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2026-03-30 16:33:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2449945 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of Final criterion "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test:  ... text editor"
2026-03-30 16:34:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 16:34:16 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 16:34:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2026-03-30 16:34:30 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 16:35:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2449945 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of Final criterion "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... text editor"
2026-03-30 16:35:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2078
2026-03-30 16:35:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2448283) Selecting a non-ASCII capable keyboard layout should automatically also select US English as a second layout
2026-03-30 16:35:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448283
2026-03-30 16:35:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, plasma-setup, NEW
2026-03-30 16:35:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this one was discussed last week, but i decided to un-accept it so we can discuss it again based on lruzicka's testing
2026-03-30 16:37:53 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> My findings are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448283#c2
2026-03-30 16:38:17 <@kparal:matrix.org> this is a mess
2026-03-30 16:38:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also, there's a bit of development this morning: Michael Catanzaro noticed/remembered that what we intend to do for the GNOME case is just *skip those pages entirely*
2026-03-30 16:38:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> do we have a "this is a mess" criterion?
2026-03-30 16:38:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since webui already covers language and input config, g-i-s should not do it, and rely on whatever the user picked in webui
2026-03-30 16:39:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is what we did at some point in the past, but then we put the pages back in a couple of releases ago because, at that point, webui didn't have language/input config
2026-03-30 16:39:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that breaks down for OEM provisioning though
2026-03-30 16:39:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> now it does, we should be able to just take them out again
2026-03-30 16:39:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm asking kde team if we can do the same for kde
2026-03-30 16:39:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the whole point of g-i-s and p-s is that we are explicitly assuming every install is equivalent to an OEM install
2026-03-30 16:39:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> taking those pages out defeats that
2026-03-30 16:39:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's certainly not how we've been drawing it up for workstation at least
2026-03-30 16:40:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for workstation the design for several releases has been that g-i-s should run on first *live* boot, cover this, then anaconda and post-install should accept what it did
2026-03-30 16:40:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but for right now we seem to be at the 'webui should do it and post-install g-i-s should go with what it did' stage
2026-03-30 16:40:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but that hasn't happened yet
2026-03-30 16:41:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for workstation the design for several releases has been that g-i-s should run on first *live* boot, cover this, then anaconda and post-install should accept what it did. we had a test implementation of this for a while but it never got upstreamed and now it's stuck
2026-03-30 16:41:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> errgh
2026-03-30 16:41:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the full design hasn't, no, but 'rely on what webui did' seems reasonable and i'm pretty sure we did it before
2026-03-30 16:41:30 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> GIS goes with what webui chose, afaik, the choices are clearly made in GIS, so if you just hit Next, it is fine.
2026-03-30 16:41:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> OEMs are not in the release criteria...and since they are using custom images they could change the g-i-s / p-s config back themselves, potentially
2026-03-30 16:42:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička it doesn't clearly indicate that it picked up what you did in webui, though
2026-03-30 16:42:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, but it doesn't hide the page
2026-03-30 16:42:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> hiding the page entirely is very different
2026-03-30 16:42:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for keyboard layout it just says "English (US)", it doesn't indicate that in fact it's actually going to go with the correct switched layout
2026-03-30 16:42:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> pre-selecting makes sense, hiding doesn't
2026-03-30 16:43:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> one reason it doesn't is that there's literally no way to provision a Linux system without a language being set
2026-03-30 16:44:08 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I am checking right now, if going through the GIS settings reveals something.
2026-03-30 16:44:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> don't bother, i'm already at it :)
2026-03-30 16:44:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's what you get on the layout page
2026-03-30 16:44:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that ticked entry says "English (USA)"
2026-03-30 16:45:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there is no indication that what's actually configured is switched US English / Russian, and *during g-i-s itself*, layout switching doesn't appear to be available
2026-03-30 16:46:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm. that's weird - on this install I just ran, i did actually wind up with a pure us english layout. even after g-i-s, no russian.
2026-03-30 16:46:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but I think on the one I ran last night, i got the same as you, the switched layout was configured even though g-i-s didn't indicate it
2026-03-30 16:47:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ohhh, wait, duh. i didn't do the config at install time. sigh
2026-03-30 16:50:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what did you find, lruzicka?
2026-03-30 16:51:42 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I found that GIS selects the language I chose, see
2026-03-30 16:52:24 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I only shows English as a layout (but I kept is a primary layout)
2026-03-30 16:53:23 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> And I end up with functional multi layout:
2026-03-30 16:53:25 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Tested right now
2026-03-30 16:53:43 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It only shows English as a layout (but I kept is a primary layout)
2026-03-30 16:53:54 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It only shows English as a layout (but I kept it a primary layout)
2026-03-30 16:54:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, so that's what i found too - the layout page doesn't indicate that you actually have a correct switched config
2026-03-30 16:54:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> still, it's less confusing than the KDE state, and you're probably *more* likely to accept the default and proceed
2026-03-30 16:54:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, hmm, as kparal said, this is a mess
2026-03-30 16:55:07 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I could achieve the same with KDE, too. 
2026-03-30 16:55:15 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Shall I try again?
2026-03-30 16:55:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, but since KDE shows *nothing at all* as being selected on the layout page, I argue users are very likely to click something, which is the wrong choice
2026-03-30 16:55:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think just clicking "Next" on a page which shows *no layout selected at all* is the natural action
2026-03-30 16:56:05 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Sure, if they click something, then it probably breaks the setup.
2026-03-30 16:56:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if they click US English, it's a minor inconvenience; if they click Russian (or whatever), the system is basically broken unless they go back and change it.
2026-03-30 16:57:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aside from that, for KDE I think we do have a technical criteria violation - the criteria say "If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that keyboard layout must be used: ... In the "initial setup" utility (if applicable)", but in my testing that wasn't the case. even if p-s does set up the switched config in the *installed* system if you just click through the empty layout page, the switched layout is not used *in p-s itself*
2026-03-30 16:58:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, that I agree with
2026-03-30 16:59:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but you could argue that requirement is a bit unnecessary for switched layout cases
2026-03-30 16:59:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because almost anything you want to type in an initial setup tool is gonna be with the ASCII layout
2026-03-30 16:59:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i sort of want to rewrite the criterion a bit with different requirements for switched layouts, but that's getting even messier...
2026-03-30 16:59:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because almost anything you want to type in an initial setup tool is gonna be with the ASCII layout, which in practice is almost always US English or something almost identical to it
2026-03-30 17:00:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because almost anything you want to type in an initial setup tool is gonna be with the ASCII layout, which in practice is almost always US English or something sufficiently similar to it that it will always be a workable alterntaive
2026-03-30 17:00:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because almost anything you want to type in an initial setup tool is gonna be with the ASCII layout, which in practice is almost always US English or something sufficiently similar to it that it will always be a workable alternative
2026-03-30 17:00:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah, there's also the thing i found where it seems like layout switching in the installer itself doesn't actually work in KDE, though that has the same caveat (it's not *really* necessary)
2026-03-30 17:01:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's see. freeze is tomorrow
2026-03-30 17:01:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we still have...ten days till first go/no-go
2026-03-30 17:01:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe we need to punt this and spend some time carving it up into a few different more accurate issues we can consider separately
2026-03-30 17:02:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> wdyt?
2026-03-30 17:03:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah that makes sense to me
2026-03-30 17:03:19 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> We can do it.
2026-03-30 17:03:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we should also talk to Merritt and get these prioritized as they are carved up
2026-03-30 17:03:30 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Will this be considered a hard to fix?
2026-03-30 17:03:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> some bits of it might be, i guess
2026-03-30 17:03:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> have to ask Merritt about it
2026-03-30 17:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think once we cut it up into separate bits we can get a clearer picture of what's feasible to fix
2026-03-30 17:04:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> michael said he's going to put the 'hide the pages in g-i-s' thing in an update we'll need for a blocker anyway
2026-03-30 17:04:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that should mostly cover workstation, assuming we re-test and it works as intended
2026-03-30 17:07:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2448283 - punt (delay decision) - further testing has indicated there are several issues here, none of which is quite as clear-cut as first thought. we will delay the decision here so we can split this into several more specific reports that each be considered on their own merits
2026-03-30 17:08:04 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:08:33 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:08:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2026-03-30 17:08:53 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:08:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2448283 - punt (delay decision) - further testing has indicated there are several issues here, none of which is quite as clear-cut as first thought. we will delay the decision here so we can split this into several more specific reports that each be considered on their own merits
2026-03-30 17:09:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's move on to:
2026-03-30 17:09:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
2026-03-30 17:09:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2444726
2026-03-30 17:09:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, firefox, NEW
2026-03-30 17:09:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2084
2026-03-30 17:09:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2444726) Workstation live Installer sometimes apparently freezes near the end, logs indicate install actually completed
2026-03-30 17:09:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+derekenz, +asciiwolf)
2026-03-30 17:09:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...is the thesis here that this is RAM related?
2026-03-30 17:09:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if so, what are we proposing to do about it?
2026-03-30 17:10:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> why is this a firefox bug? 
2026-03-30 17:10:47 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 FE
2026-03-30 17:10:55 <@supakeen:fedora.im> I guess because on workstation the installer runs in Firefox, which is thin.
2026-03-30 17:10:57 <@supakeen:fedora.im> !hi
2026-03-30 17:10:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Simon de Vlieger (supakeen) - he / him / his
2026-03-30 17:11:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> this has been happening to me with GTK-based anaconda for years, including on c10s. though I think I've only ever seen it in VMs, it looks like the VM locks up during bootloader installation.
2026-03-30 17:11:30 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> +1 FE
2026-03-30 17:11:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> I mainly put it on firefox because it doesn't appear to ever happen on KDE
2026-03-30 17:11:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which uses slitherer
2026-03-30 17:12:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the openQA case definitely appears new. i do not remember ever seeing this before the f44 cycle.
2026-03-30 17:12:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the VM is not 'locked up', either - we can switch to a VT and collect logs fine
2026-03-30 17:13:06 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> hm, ok. very similar but slightly different symptoms then :(
2026-03-30 17:14:12 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I've just come to accept the fact that installs in VMs appear borked during the "configuring" stage, but things appear to actually have installed correctly when you force-reset the VM 🙃
2026-03-30 17:14:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/4519370#next_previous is the openQA test log for aarch64 F45 KDE live install - note there's only one '_do_install_and_reboot' failure, and it's not this bug. https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/4519372#next_previous is the Workstation log - note how many do_install_and_reboot failures there are, and most of them are this
2026-03-30 17:15:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> anyway +1 FE 
2026-03-30 17:15:05 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> sorry for the tangent :) 
2026-03-30 17:16:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/4519906#next_previous is F43 aarch64 workstation - there's a few do_install_and_reboot fails, but i just clicked through and none of them are this, they're all something else
2026-03-30 17:17:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmmm
2026-03-30 17:17:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, I wrote in the original descriptio "This never seems to happen on KDE (where the installer UI runs in slitherer). It seems like it's happening more often on Rawhide than on F44, but that *could* just be chance." - I guess it's not,as the pattern has continued
2026-03-30 17:17:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, I wrote in the original description "This never seems to happen on KDE (where the installer UI runs in slitherer). It seems like it's happening more often on Rawhide than on F44, but that *could* just be chance." - I guess it's not chance, as the pattern has continued
2026-03-30 17:17:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> from what I can tell it has more to do with how the VM is configured on the host than the actual guest 
2026-03-30 17:18:18 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> assuming that it's a variation of the same bug 
2026-03-30 17:19:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, anyway. i guess i can be +1 FE in principle if someone finds a magic fix for this somehow
2026-03-30 17:20:21 <@supakeen:fedora.im> +1 FE, I don't know if there are good ways to debug a hung Firefox.
2026-03-30 17:21:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2444726 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - there seem to be various mysterious aspects to this, but we agree that if somebody somehow figures out what's going on and finds a safe fix, the issue certainly qualifies as an FE in principle (it's a very visible and apparently-critical issue that can't be fixed with an update, even if in *fact* the install probably went fine and will work on reboot)
2026-03-30 17:21:51 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:21:56 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:22:10 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:22:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2444726 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - there seem to be various mysterious aspects to this, but we agree that if somebody somehow figures out what's going on and finds a safe fix, the issue certainly qualifies as an FE in principle (it's a very visible and apparently-critical issue that can't be fixed with an update, even if in fact the install probably went fine and will work on reboot)
2026-03-30 17:22:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450672
2026-03-30 17:22:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2450672) Black screen after installing a number of updates including dpkg + grub
2026-03-30 17:22:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2085
2026-03-30 17:22:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, grub2, NEW
2026-03-30 17:23:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess i can be +1 FE to this in principle, on the 'fixing upgrades during freeze is a good idea' precedent
2026-03-30 17:25:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> dpkg? :o
2026-03-30 17:25:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE
2026-03-30 17:26:16 <@derekenz:fedora.im> FE +1
2026-03-30 17:26:17 <@supakeen:fedora.im> +1 FE but does this belong in the blocker review? I don't think it'd affect any of our deliverables if it indeed only affects people with set themes *and* the update is also in 43?
2026-03-30 17:26:29 <@supakeen:fedora.im> +1 FE but does this belong in the 44 blocker review? I don't think it'd affect any of our deliverables if it indeed only affects people with set themes _and_ the update is also in 43?
2026-03-30 17:26:36 <@jcline:fedora.im> Yeah, FE +1. No idea how common grub themes are, but clearly someone is using htem
2026-03-30 17:26:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're in FE review, not blocker review :)
2026-03-30 17:27:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> they'er combined
2026-03-30 17:27:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this would be a proposed blocker if it affected any kinda default install
2026-03-30 17:27:32 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Right, just that this also affect 43 since it was also shipped there :)
2026-03-30 17:28:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, but we don't freeze updates for f43
2026-03-30 17:28:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so the fix can go to f43 as soon as it's ready
2026-03-30 17:28:18 <@supakeen:fedora.im> True :)
2026-03-30 17:29:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2450672 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted on the basis that it's a pretty bad experience if you have the config that triggers this, and you can potentially hit it on upgrade to F44 during freeze since updates-testing repo is not enabled by default on stable releases, and we want to avoid that happening if possible
2026-03-30 17:29:55 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:30:05 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack, thanks for the additional clarification on that.
2026-03-30 17:30:25 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:30:25 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:30:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2026-03-30 17:30:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2450672 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted on the basis that it's a pretty bad experience if you have the config that triggers this, and you can potentially hit it on upgrade to F44 during freeze since updates-testing repo is not enabled by default on stable releases, and we want to avoid that happening if possible
2026-03-30 17:31:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> meanwhile, a new proposed blocker emerged
2026-03-30 17:31:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2086
2026-03-30 17:31:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
2026-03-30 17:31:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2453005) systemd-oomd.service is not enabled on some systems
2026-03-30 17:31:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2453005
2026-03-30 17:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info NOTE: this is a new proposed blocker, we are back in blocker review, sorry for not noting it clearly
2026-03-30 17:31:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this seems a bit fuzzy ATM
2026-03-30 17:33:53 <@supakeen:fedora.im> It hasn't been touched in a pretty long time. I think a punt is in order to ask more questions (e.g. I'd be interested in knowing what's actually in their preset files).
2026-03-30 17:34:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's potentially a blocker if we can prove it affects upgrades from a cleanly installed/updated F42/F43, I guess
2026-03-30 17:34:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but on the whole yeah, i was thinking punt
2026-03-30 17:34:59 <@supakeen:fedora.im> I see you already mentioned the relevant file so let's see what's in it and then go from there on what might (or might not) cause it.
2026-03-30 17:36:00 <@supakeen:fedora.im> There *might* be some rare situation where `systemctl preset-all` didn't get called in some code-path at some point in time; however unlikely? E.g. not considered a first-boot or something after installation.
2026-03-30 17:36:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2453005 - punt (delay decision) - there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about this ATM. we will wait for more info from the reporter, and possibly some independent re-testing of clean f42 / f43 installs and upgrades, to make the determination
2026-03-30 17:36:13 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:36:14 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:36:40 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-03-30 17:37:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2453005 - punt (delay decision) - there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about this ATM. we will wait for more info from the reporter, and possibly some independent re-testing of clean f42 / f43 installs and upgrades, to make the determination
2026-03-30 17:37:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's take a quick look through:
2026-03-30 17:37:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2026-03-30 17:37:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, mesa, NEW
2026-03-30 17:37:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2359799) Inital-setup: VK_ERROR_DEVICE_LOST using nvidia hardware
2026-03-30 17:37:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359799
2026-03-30 17:37:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2074
2026-03-30 17:37:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sadly still just sorta sitting around, we really need...someone...to figure out what the heck to do about it
2026-03-30 17:39:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone got any bright ideas?
2026-03-30 17:40:22 <@supakeen:fedora.im> No NVIDIA in this household either.
2026-03-30 17:40:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I have no hardware either, but I wonder if this is the root issue for the crashes I've got reports on with nvidia
2026-03-30 17:41:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to try and find someone who can investigate this
2026-03-30 17:42:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we are still kinda stuck waiting for any kinda technical investigation here, I will try and find someone who is able to look into it
2026-03-30 17:42:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2446745
2026-03-30 17:42:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2446745) gnome-initial-setup does not enable third party repos
2026-03-30 17:42:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, MODIFIED
2026-03-30 17:42:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2080
2026-03-30 17:42:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this got re-opened today because the SELinux fix was necessary but not sufficient, a gnome-initial-setup fix is also needed. mcatanzaro is on it
2026-03-30 17:44:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2391723) `shim-ia32` missing since `shim-15.8-4`
2026-03-30 17:44:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, shim, ON_QA
2026-03-30 17:44:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391723
2026-03-30 17:44:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2075
2026-03-30 17:44:17 <@supakeen:fedora.im> So the above should be complete but I don't think anyone has tested on real hardware yet.
2026-03-30 17:44:31 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Just before this meeting I've sent off an email to Hans to see if he has time to test on hardware.
2026-03-30 17:44:56 <@supakeen:fedora.im> We verified at least the `image-builder` ISO's with the following virtualized thing: https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/1604#issuecomment-4045838167 (which is a bit annoying as 32-bit openedk isn't shipped on newer Fedora's).
2026-03-30 17:45:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this looks it should be fixed, we just need confirmation...
2026-03-30 17:45:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we believe all necessary bits of this are now done, but it would be good to get confirmation from someone with real hardware
2026-03-30 17:46:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2448365) rpi4 fails to boot from usb drive after upgrade to RC3
2026-03-30 17:46:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448365
2026-03-30 17:46:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, uboot-tools, ASSIGNED
2026-03-30 17:46:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2079
2026-03-30 17:46:52 <@supakeen:fedora.im> I'm planning on verifying the above with the latest u-boot build currently in Bodhi (which also enabled NVMe booting on the Pi 5 \o/).
2026-03-30 17:48:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks.
2026-03-30 17:48:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we are still waiting on a fix here, and/or for Peter to clarify what "context" is needed. Simon will test the latest uboot build and see if it changes things here
2026-03-30 17:50:46 <@supakeen:fedora.im> FWIW it can happen that USB boot doesn't work from *some* USB sticks/disks but works from others; from what I recall it has something to do with how quickly they come up after the bus gets reset or such but I'll see.
2026-03-30 17:51:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> fun
2026-03-30 17:51:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, I guess that's everything
2026-03-30 17:51:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2026-03-30 17:51:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2026-03-30 17:52:07 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Nothing here
2026-03-30 17:52:19 <@supakeen:fedora.im> No, thank you :)
2026-03-30 17:53:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, thanks for coming, everyone
2026-03-30 17:53:57 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> nothing here
2026-03-30 17:54:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting