17:00:36 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
17:00:36 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar  7 17:00:36 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:36 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:36 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:36 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
17:00:36 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:36 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:02:24 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks
17:02:34 <adamw> who's here to do something exciting and fun?
17:02:42 <adamw> if that's you, sorry, the door's over there
17:03:02 * kparal is here
17:03:15 * pschindl is here
17:03:53 * pschindl have to go for wife to the train station in few minutes. I'll be back ... at 17:45 UTC
17:04:07 <adamw> #chair kparal kalev
17:04:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kalev kparal
17:05:51 <adamw> alrighty, let's see where we can get to
17:05:55 <kparal> which means I'll have no excuse to do the sectary duty for once :)
17:06:06 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:06:06 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:06:06 <adamw> #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.
17:06:06 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:06:08 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:06:08 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:06:10 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:06:12 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:06:14 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:06:18 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:06:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
17:06:22 <adamw> #info kparal will secretarialize
17:06:32 <adamw> we have:
17:06:58 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Alpha Blockers, 2 Proposed Beta Blockers, 1 Proposed Final Blocker, and 5 Proposed Alpha Freeze Exceptions
17:07:05 <adamw> #info 4 Accepted Alpha Blockers
17:07:24 <kparal> before we start, is the decision to drop wayland by default in f24 definitive?
17:07:36 * kparal read it on phoronix, but haven't seen any mailing list thread about it
17:08:16 <adamw> it wasn't entirely clear
17:08:27 <adamw> from my reading of the meeting log there was a bit of room left for a possible change
17:08:49 <adamw> but https://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/2016/03/04/why-wayland-anyway/ seems quite definitive
17:08:51 <kparal> so what are we going to assume when deciding about blockers?
17:09:17 <kparal> yes, the blog post seems to be clear
17:09:47 <adamw> my preference for blockers is that we simply work off what the current bits do
17:10:17 <adamw> when the bits change, the blocker status can change
17:10:21 <mclasen___> we're switching the default back for f24 today or tomorrow
17:10:23 <kparal> as in "default installation"?
17:10:34 <kparal> mclasen___: thanks for confirmation
17:10:39 <adamw> kparal: well, for instance, with the 'anaconda running on wayland' issue - so long as the lives actually still boot to wayland, it's a blocker
17:10:42 <adamw> as soon as they don't, it isn't
17:10:42 <mclasen___> as in default session if you don't explicitly select one from the session chooser
17:10:57 <adamw> (that's my take anyhow)
17:11:01 <kparal> adamw: ok, sounds reasonable
17:12:02 <adamw> alrighty, let's get rolling
17:12:13 <adamw> oh hey, speak of the devil
17:12:14 <adamw> #topic (1313098) liveinst does not work in Wayland (consolehelper)
17:12:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313098
17:12:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:12:40 <adamw> so yeah, for me, right now, this is a blocker. but of course, 'make the lives boot to X instead' is an acceptable resolution (along with anaconda's team's fix, which seems to be a real one)
17:13:04 <kparal> sounds good to me
17:13:14 <kparal> do we actually have 3 people to vote?
17:13:21 <kalev> yeah, +1 blocker, but the fix is likely to be to switch to default to X11
17:13:34 <kparal> kalev saves the day, 3 people now!
17:13:34 <tflink> +1 blocker
17:13:35 * RaphGro joins silently
17:13:44 <kparal> so much people, so much wow
17:13:49 <kparal> +1
17:13:51 <RaphGro> I read wayland is delayed again as feature
17:14:02 <adamw> yep
17:14:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1313098 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - as the bits currently stand, this is a clear blocker. switching the lives back to X (as will apparently happen) would be an acceptable resolution
17:14:55 * kalev has forgotten the protocol. ack ?
17:15:02 <kparal> ack
17:15:11 <adamw> kalev: yep, ack/nack/patch for proposals
17:16:19 <adamw> #agreed 1313098 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - as the bits currently stand, this is a clear blocker. switching the lives back to X (as will apparently happen) would be an acceptable resolution
17:16:21 <kparal> how can I get a meetbot link to an unfinished meeting?
17:16:35 <adamw> kparal: meetbot-raw has them
17:16:47 <adamw> kparal: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2016-03-07/f24-blocker-review.2016-03-07-17.00.log.txt
17:16:53 <kparal> thanks
17:17:06 <adamw> #topic (1313957) anaconda prefers i686 PAE kernel to x86_64 for x86_64 install if it's available
17:17:06 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313957
17:17:06 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:17:11 <adamw> so before we vote on this, note it has a companion:
17:17:29 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313949 is coming up next, that's the bug for pungi including the i686 kernels in the trees
17:17:35 * adamw tries to find relevant people
17:17:43 <adamw> dgilmore: ping? need your help for this one
17:18:36 <adamw> so while we wait for folks...the basic issue here definitely seems to be a blocker: if you do an x86_64 network install of F24 you'll get an i686 kernel and the system won't boot
17:18:58 <kparal> +1
17:19:10 <adamw> so we should take either this or #1313957 or both as blockers
17:19:33 <adamw> i'd probably go with 1313957, but it'd be nice to get input from releng and/or anaconda
17:19:39 <adamw> i pinged #anaconda
17:21:53 <kalev> I guess the change that triggered it is that pungi is now getting a mashed together multilib tree as its input?
17:22:06 <kparal> I'm not sure if it is anaconda's bug that it installs the wrong kernel when both are available. that would probably go to dnf. but either way, the root cause of this is in pungi
17:22:25 <dgilmore> adamw: just about done in the releng meeting
17:22:28 <kparal> so maybe we should accept the one in pungi?
17:22:30 <dgilmore> adamw: can come soon
17:22:31 <adamw> kalev: i don't think that's quite the right way to look at it, the production of the multilib trees is itself pungi's job
17:22:42 <adamw> (at least aiui)
17:22:55 <adamw> dgilmore: ok, we'll wait for you
17:23:09 <adamw> suggestion: let's knock off another bug or two while we wait for dgilmore and come back to this
17:23:18 <kparal> surew
17:23:34 <adamw> #info we will return to this bug and its companion in a minute, when dgilmore is available
17:23:39 <adamw> #topic (1313085) Name resolution fails (resolv.conf is a broken systemd symlink) on livemedia-creator live image
17:23:39 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313085
17:23:39 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:23:56 <adamw> this is something of an...old favourite...for me and the anaconda folks
17:24:12 <adamw> i'd say it's clearly a blocker, agreeing on a way to get it resolved is going to be fun.
17:24:30 <adamw> anyone need a quick recap of the details or are we OK to just throw a +1 at it?
17:24:52 <kalev> sounds like a blocker to me if name resolution doesn't work ...
17:24:54 <lupinix> hi
17:25:03 <kparal> +1
17:25:08 <kalev> +1
17:25:33 <lupinix> +1  (found this too when testing several live builds of last days)
17:25:35 <adamw> hi lupinix
17:25:38 <kparal> the two parties need to find some solution
17:25:59 <maxamillion> +1
17:26:25 <tflink> +1
17:27:13 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1313085 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." (footnotes) and any other network-related criterion for both KDE and Workstation lives
17:27:19 <adamw> kparal: three parties
17:27:30 <adamw> kparal: that's what makes it so fun - livemedia-creator, systemd, and NetworkManager
17:27:32 <kparal> the more the merrier!
17:27:38 <adamw> =)
17:28:06 <kparal> ack
17:28:12 <kalev> ack
17:28:53 <adamw> #agreed 1313085 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." (footnotes) and any other network-related criterion for both KDE and Workstation lives
17:29:02 <adamw> dgilmore: clear yet?
17:29:55 <dgilmore> adamw: no sir
17:30:08 <adamw> alrighty, we'll go and do some beta blockers till you're ready
17:30:23 <adamw> #info moving onto Beta blockers for now, will still circle back to remaining Alpha blockers when we have dgilmore
17:30:41 <adamw> #topic (1314230) libvirt fails with undefined symbol
17:30:41 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314230
17:30:41 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, libvirt, NEW
17:31:37 <adamw> i haven't confirmed this, but as described it sure smells like a blocker
17:31:43 <maxamillion> adamw: +1
17:32:04 <maxamillion> adamw: seems odd that a rebuild resolves the issue, could just be a gcc6 issue that's been resolved
17:32:06 <kalev> is the criteria that default apps have to all work Beta criteria?
17:32:17 <dgilmore> adamw: free now
17:32:23 <adamw> kalev: no, that's Final
17:32:28 <adamw> kalev: but virt is required to work at Beta
17:32:32 <kalev> ahh, fair enough
17:32:47 <kparal> +1
17:32:51 <kalev> +1
17:32:55 <maxamillion> +1
17:33:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1314230 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this sounds like a clear violation of Beta criterion "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release." (with footnote describing the supported virt stack, including libvirt)
17:34:06 <kparal> ack
17:34:13 <kalev> ack
17:34:19 <adamw> #agreed 1314230 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this sounds like a clear violation of Beta criterion "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release." (with footnote describing the supported virt stack, including libvirt)
17:34:26 <adamw> #info circling back to Alpha blockers now
17:34:33 <adamw> #topic (1313957) anaconda prefers i686 PAE kernel to x86_64 for x86_64 install if it's available
17:34:33 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313957
17:34:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:34:43 <adamw> dgilmore: so the question is, should we take the anaconda issue or the pungi issue or both as blockers
17:34:47 <adamw> this one's the anaconda one
17:34:52 <adamw> wdyt?
17:36:09 <dgilmore> adamw: possibly both
17:36:23 <adamw> hi, pirate
17:36:25 <handsome_pirate> apologies, y'all, was busy
17:36:45 <adamw> so the case against taking the anaconda one would be, I guess, it's pungi's job to make sure the kernels don't show up there in the first place
17:36:52 <adamw> and that's always how it worked before
17:36:55 <dgilmore> the multilib blacklists in pungi are not working correctly
17:36:59 <dgilmore> which is a bug
17:37:09 * adamw tries to play an anaconda person, since none of them is here
17:37:25 <dgilmore> adamw: that is what anaconda folk would say
17:37:32 <adamw> <bcl> adamw: sorry for the late reply, but things like that are really up to dnf, not anaconda.
17:37:39 <adamw> so i guess we should call this a dnf bug
17:37:49 <maxamillion> oh dnf :)
17:38:10 <dgilmore> adamw: but if someone enabled the i386 repo because they wanted to add a bunch of 32 packages that are not multilib it would show up there also
17:38:29 <dgilmore> though I guess you would use a kickstart and add "-kernel-PAE"
17:38:43 <adamw> i think that scenario would not be considered blocking
17:38:53 <adamw> my instinct here, to be explicit, is that both these are bugs, but the pungi one should be the blocker
17:39:15 <dgilmore> I can not promise a pungi fix in time
17:39:20 <adamw> mmm, ok
17:39:28 <adamw> 'in time' for - what? freeze? go/no-go?
17:39:36 <dgilmore> because I do not currently understand why it is happening
17:39:48 <dgilmore> adamw: go/no-go
17:39:51 <adamw> ok
17:39:53 <kalev> how does this all work? does pungi do the multilib tree creation in F24 instead of mash?
17:40:00 <dgilmore> freeze is 24 hours away
17:40:14 <dgilmore> kalev: yes, pungi does it
17:40:19 * RaphGro must leave
17:40:26 <dgilmore> kalev: we do not use mash to make rawhide or f24
17:40:34 <RaphGro> my proposals were discussed in last meeting, anyways.
17:40:35 <kalev> ahh, I see
17:41:08 <dgilmore> it was a change that landed about 2 weeks ago
17:41:28 <adamw> RaphGro: thanks for coming
17:41:36 <adamw> RaphGro: we always like to have more voters, so if you can come in future it's great :)
17:41:53 <RaphGro> real life calls
17:42:00 <RaphGro> cya
17:44:14 <adamw> so, hmm
17:44:43 <adamw> i suppose what we could do is file a higher-level 'x86_64 installs get i686 kernels and don't work' bug, and have it related to both of these bugs, then make that one the blocker
17:44:45 <adamw> how does that sound?
17:44:54 <kalev> makes sense to me
17:45:03 <dgilmore> adamw: sure
17:45:10 <dgilmore> we need some fix
17:45:27 * handsome_pirate is +1
17:45:30 <adamw> ok
17:45:32 * adamw plays hold music
17:45:39 <adamw> be back in two minutes with a magic new bug. :)
17:45:50 <handsome_pirate> This is clearly the problem:  https://media.giphy.com/media/WM3HX2cZ3zTry/giphy.gif
17:45:52 <kparal> I just hope both parties will not expect the fix coming from the other direction, this way
17:45:57 <adamw> #topic SOOTHING LIGHT CLASSICAL MUSIC
17:46:21 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  doesn't quite work with my raging metal
17:50:05 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315434
17:50:19 <adamw> gr
17:50:37 <adamw> #topic (1315434) Fedora 24 x86_64 network installs get i686 kernel and fail to boot
17:50:43 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315434
17:50:49 <kalev> +1 blocker
17:50:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
17:50:54 <adamw> so i'm +1 to this, obviously
17:50:56 <lupinix> +1
17:51:03 <dgilmore> +1
17:51:10 <handsome_pirate> +1
17:51:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1315434 - AcceptedBlocker - whichever underlying bug we decide to fix, this is clearly an Alpha blocker as it prevents installed system boot after an x86_64 network install
17:51:51 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:51:59 <kalev> ack
17:52:15 <adamw> #agreed 1315434 - AcceptedBlocker - whichever underlying bug we decide to fix, this is clearly an Alpha blocker as it prevents installed system boot after an x86_64 network install
17:52:21 <adamw> ok, so let's circle back to the other two bugs
17:52:31 <adamw> #topic (1313957) anaconda prefers i686 PAE kernel to x86_64 for x86_64 install if it's available
17:52:31 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313957
17:52:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:52:41 <adamw> proposal: un-nominate this and the other bug as we have the new bug now
17:52:49 <adamw> they're not really rejected, just...superseded
17:53:14 <handsome_pirate> +q also
17:53:15 <kalev> sure
17:53:17 <kparal> +1
17:53:23 <handsome_pirate> +1
17:53:26 <lupinix> +1
17:53:33 <handsome_pirate> silly keyboard
17:53:49 <pschindl> +1
17:54:05 <adamw> #agreed we will drop the blocker nomination here as it has been superseded by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315434
17:54:13 <adamw> #topic (1313949) pungi includes i686 kernels in x86_64 trees
17:54:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313949
17:54:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, pungi, NEW
17:54:14 <adamw> same here:
17:54:21 <adamw> #agreed we will drop the blocker nomination here as it has been superseded by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315434
17:54:21 <kparal> +1
17:54:31 <pschindl> +
17:54:35 <pschindl> +1
17:54:40 <adamw> #info OK, let's get back to Beta blockers
17:54:41 <lupinix> +1
17:54:50 <adamw> #topic (1293055) Black screen after logout
17:54:50 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293055
17:54:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, sddm, NEW
17:56:30 <kparal> I guess no one tested this
17:56:40 <kparal> or did anyone?
17:56:46 <adamw> not me :(
17:56:56 * adamw pokes #fedora-kde quickly
17:58:42 * adamw brb, call of nature
17:59:10 <lupinix> at least i recognized this issue (with plasma5 and lxqt) some days ago
17:59:15 * rdieter_work waves
17:59:56 <rdieter_work> if not already mentioned, I think answers to questions from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293055#c6 are needed first, before considering a blocker
18:00:35 <rdieter_work> that should help confirm if it really is sddm or the prior session not ending properly
18:01:03 <lupinix> i only had this issue in a virtual machine (kvm) btw
18:01:20 <lupinix> but haven't tested it in detail
18:01:44 <kparal> rdieter_work: do you see it yourself in daily usage?
18:01:45 <lupinix> oh, and i've tested with f23
18:01:55 <lupinix> not 24...
18:03:14 <rdieter_work> kparal: no, but I'm not using f24 yet either
18:03:19 <adamw> sounds like we need more data again
18:03:42 <kparal> yeah, I'd say we either punt or reject this until more people report they're seeing this
18:05:02 <adamw> agreed
18:05:17 <handsome_pirate> I'm pulling down the KDE iso right now
18:05:20 <handsome_pirate> gonna be a while
18:05:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1293055 - punt (delay decision) - we still don't have sufficient info to make a decision here. we will make a decision next week; if there is not sufficient indication by that time that this issue clearly affects a clean F24 KDE install, it will likely be rejected as a blocker
18:06:28 <lupinix> +1
18:06:37 <pschindl> ack
18:06:44 <kalev> ack
18:06:51 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:06:54 <kparal> ack
18:07:34 <adamw> #agreed 1293055 - punt (delay decision) - we still don't have sufficient info to make a decision here. we will make a decision next week; if there is not sufficient indication by that time that this issue clearly affects a clean F24 KDE install, it will likely be rejected as a blocker
18:07:46 <adamw> #info that's all the Beta blockers, onto final
18:07:57 <adamw> #topic (1276251) SELinux is preventing spice-vdagentd from 'getattr' accesses on the filesystem /sys/fs/cgroup.
18:07:57 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276251
18:07:57 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW
18:08:58 <kparal> +1
18:09:18 <kalev> +1
18:09:23 <lupinix> +1
18:09:30 <handsome_pirate> +1
18:09:42 <adamw> sure, seems to fit the criterion. +1
18:09:45 <pschindl> +1
18:10:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1276251 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop."
18:10:09 <pschindl> ack
18:10:13 <lupinix> ack
18:10:13 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:10:32 <adamw> #agreed 1276251 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop."
18:10:33 <kalev> ack
18:10:56 <adamw> #info that's all the proposed blockers: as we're freezing this week, let's go to proposed Alpha freeze exceptions
18:11:09 <adamw> #topic (1298126) Devel subpackage of kernel should require versioned main package (kernel-devel >> kernel)
18:11:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298126
18:11:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, dnf, NEW
18:12:32 <kalev> my usual gut feeling is that it makes sense to file freeze exception issues for things where someone has a fix available and wants to get it through freeze
18:12:49 <kalev> doesn't look like that's the case here ...
18:12:55 <adamw> i don't see any justification for an FE here
18:13:06 <adamw> whatever the exact issue is, it doesn't seem like anything to do with the release media
18:13:11 <kalev> yup
18:13:40 <handsome_pirate> yeah, I'm -1
18:14:32 <adamw> any other votes?
18:14:33 <kparal> FEs don't need to involve release media, do they?
18:14:33 <lupinix> -1
18:14:43 <kalev> -1-1
18:14:48 * kparal is new here
18:14:53 <handsome_pirate> kparal:  well, that's sort of the point
18:14:56 <adamw> kparal: well, they usually do. it needs to be an issue that would actually be somehow improved by being included in the frozen package set as opposed to in updates-testing.
18:15:10 <adamw> there *are* other cases than the media, but the media is the most common one.
18:15:16 <kparal> oh I see, u-t is still enabled by default
18:15:22 <adamw> yes.
18:15:28 <kparal> so having it in u-t should be enough
18:15:32 <kparal> ok for me, -1
18:16:36 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1298126 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - there doesn't seem to be anything here which would actually be helped by a freeze exception. It can be re-proposed with a clearer justification.
18:17:15 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:17:18 <kalev> ack
18:17:19 <lupinix> ack
18:17:47 <kparal> ack
18:17:49 <adamw> #agreed 1298126 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - there doesn't seem to be anything here which would actually be helped by a freeze exception. It can be re-proposed with a clearer justification.
18:17:59 <adamw> #topic (1307633) icu: Many essential codes are missing in i386, such as almost all international latin encodings
18:18:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307633
18:18:00 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, icu, NEW
18:18:48 * adamw reads
18:19:14 <kparal> what the hell is UAT?
18:19:34 <adamw> this is a good question
18:19:43 <kparal> people could at least avoid abbreviations in justifications
18:20:11 <kalev> User Acceptance Testing is the top result in google
18:20:17 <kparal> also the reports seems to think that the FE will add icu to critical path
18:21:00 <handsome_pirate> libicu is installed by default, yes?
18:21:02 * handsome_pirate looks
18:21:25 <lupinix> libicu is a major dependency of webkit and Qt for example
18:21:30 <adamw> user something testing?
18:21:39 <adamw> oh, "user acceptance testing"
18:21:43 <kparal> I wonder if this can be somehow related to glibc split?
18:21:54 <adamw> i guess those of us who are paid big bags of peanuts to be professional QA people should pretend we totally knew that
18:21:58 <adamw> i don't think so
18:22:01 <adamw> it seems to be a GCC 6 issue
18:22:14 <lupinix> kparal: no, was already there before (i discussed with RaphGro about it)
18:22:23 <adamw> kparal: i don't think he thinks this bug being an FE would make icu part of the critical path, he's just suggesting that as well
18:23:08 <adamw> it would be nice to have a nice clear easily digestible "this is what happens because of this bug" explanation
18:23:24 <kalev> anyway, I can think of one thing this affects on Workstation media, which is yelp
18:23:24 <kparal> adamw: you get peanuts? I get bananas
18:23:28 <adamw> i'm getting the impression that perhaps it means you can't really use many non-english languages on 32-bit lives
18:23:37 <adamw> but i'm just not sure
18:23:39 <kalev> but what exactly goes wrong is unclear to me too, but it does sound like it's only 32 bit related
18:23:48 <kparal> I'd ask for clarification and punt
18:23:54 <adamw> seems reasonable
18:24:04 <handsome_pirate> +1 needinfo and punt
18:24:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1307633 - punt (delay decision) - everyone on the bug seems to be in agreement that something is wrong, but it is not obvious to us idiots exactly what the practical consequence of this is, so we cannot make a decision. we will request a more understandable summary of the practical impact of the bug and revisit this at the next meeting
18:25:07 <lupinix> ack
18:25:09 <kalev> ack
18:25:23 <kparal> should I copy that verbatim into the bug? :)
18:25:26 <kparal> ack
18:25:52 <adamw> #agreed 1307633 - punt (delay decision) - everyone on the bug seems to be in agreement that something is wrong, but it is not obvious to us idiots exactly what the practical consequence of this is, so we cannot make a decision. we will request a more understandable summary of the practical impact of the bug and revisit this at the next meeting
18:25:55 <adamw> kparal: heh, up to you
18:26:03 <adamw> #topic (1299210) No initial-setup on Fedora Rawhide 20160115 (qemu-kvm)
18:26:03 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299210
18:26:04 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, initial-setup, MODIFIED
18:26:58 <kalev> sounds like it's already fixed?
18:27:18 <kalev> the bug says, "Fixed In Version: anaconda-24.11-1" and latest build is anaconda-24.13-1.fc24
18:27:25 <adamw> yeah, and the reporter confirmed it
18:27:44 <adamw> i'd probably prefer to close this and ask the reporter to file a new bug for the layout issue if it persists (though it does look quite serious)
18:27:59 <adamw> we should also probably find out whether this is working on ARM, because it's release-blocking there
18:28:03 <adamw> pwhalen: ahoy?
18:28:24 <pwhalen> adamw, howdy
18:28:31 <kparal> +1 to close
18:28:38 <adamw> pwhalen: have you tried any recent f24 ARM images? is initial-setup working OK?
18:28:42 <pwhalen> +1 to close, its been working on arem
18:29:07 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1299210 - close bug - per bug discussion it seems the issue filed here is fixed, we think the bug should be closed. if other initial-setup issues persist, they should be filed separately and nominated as blockers or freeze exceptions as appropriate
18:29:13 <adamw> pwhalen: cool, thanks
18:29:21 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:29:22 <kalev> ack
18:29:24 <pwhalen> ack
18:29:42 <adamw> #agreed 1299210 - close bug - per bug discussion it seems the issue filed here is fixed, we think the bug should be closed. if other initial-setup issues persist, they should be filed separately and nominated as blockers or freeze exceptions as appropriate
18:29:57 <adamw> #topic (1312675) Please disable fatal warnings in dbus user session, dbus must guess about Qt5 applications
18:29:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312675
18:29:58 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, qt5-qtbase, NEW
18:30:44 <adamw> i think this would maybe need some more concrete info on practical impacts again
18:30:56 * kalev agrees.
18:30:59 <adamw> it seems it can cause issues with package build due to test suites failing, but that doesn't need an FE, I don't think
18:31:13 <lupinix> rdieter_work: do you have any info on this?
18:31:15 <adamw> if this can cause practical issues with use of the KDE live it could be an FE, but we don't have a clear indication of that yet I don't think
18:31:35 <lupinix> i know RaphGro found this issue several times
18:32:51 <kparal> reject and repropose if it affects KDE image
18:33:26 * handsome_pirate is thinking punt until the QT folks take a look
18:33:26 <adamw> yeah, that's clean, i guess
18:33:34 <adamw> it's easy enough to repropose
18:34:03 <lupinix> Steps to Reproduce:
18:34:03 <lupinix> 1. build any Qt5 application, e.g. trojita, python-qutepart or enki
18:34:04 <lupinix> 2. run some tests
18:34:15 <lupinix> not enough info for testing imho
18:34:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1312675 - RejectedFreezeException - for now this is rejected as there is not yet a clear indication that this causes practical issues in a context that would be affected by an FE (e.g. use of the KDE live image). it can be reproposed if such an impact is demonstrated
18:34:59 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:35:25 <lupinix> ack
18:35:28 <kalev> ack
18:35:43 <adamw> #agreed 1312675 - RejectedFreezeException - for now this is rejected as there is not yet a clear indication that this causes practical issues in a context that would be affected by an FE (e.g. use of the KDE live image). it can be reproposed if such an impact is demonstrated
18:35:52 <adamw> #topic (1302153) f24 rawhide rendering of sugar-desktop is missing icons and shows bad rendering of desktop
18:35:52 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302153
18:35:52 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, NEW
18:36:15 <adamw> yikes, +1, that looks bad.
18:36:43 <handsome_pirate> +1
18:38:11 <lupinix> +-0 as i cannot classify it in detail (i'm new here ans don't know the exact criteria for such cases)
18:38:27 <kparal> I don't know what's wrong with the picture except for upper right corner
18:38:28 * lupinix is searching the wiki
18:38:31 <kparal> but +1 in general
18:39:05 <kalev> sounds like something that we would block on if it was in one of the primary deliverables
18:39:36 <kalev> makes sense to try and fix this during the freeze
18:39:38 <adamw> it should look more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_%28software%29#/media/File:Sugar-home-view-0.82.jpg
18:40:15 <kparal> I see
18:40:49 <adamw> well, i think the bar's changed a bit recently, but...there's definitely stuff missing and rendered wrong.
18:41:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1302153 - AcceptedFreezeException - Sugar desktop rendering is clearly incorrect and this affects the SoaS live, thus merits a freeze exception (cannot be fixed with update)
18:41:18 <lupinix> ok, i'm +1 now, makes sense
18:41:38 <kparal> ack
18:41:42 <lupinix> ack
18:41:50 <kalev> ack
18:42:44 <adamw> #agreed 1302153 - AcceptedFreezeException - Sugar desktop rendering is clearly incorrect and this affects the SoaS live, thus merits a freeze exception (cannot be fixed with update)
18:42:51 <adamw> alrighty, that's all blockers and proposed Alpha FEs
18:43:07 * kparal sighs with relief
18:43:38 <adamw> accepted blockers mostly look like they're being taken care of, the big two are going to be the i686 kernel issue and the live network issue
18:43:44 <kalev> I just remembered something, does anyone know if the yelp uri parsing issue that almost made F23 slip has gotten fixed in any way, either on anaconda or yelp side?
18:43:45 <adamw> i guess i'll try and poke relevant people to figure out a plan for those
18:43:51 <adamw> i'll send out a blocker status mail
18:43:57 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:44:15 <adamw> #info Alpha blockers are mostly being taken care of, the big issues will be the i686 kernel on x86_64 install issue and the live image network issue
18:44:19 <adamw> #action adamw to send out a blocker status mail
18:44:33 <adamw> kalev: i believe there's been some work done on it, the bug has definitely got some changes
18:44:38 <kalev> ahh cool
18:44:43 * adamw has been following it but can't recall the details
18:45:26 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303334 looks to be the current bug
18:45:32 <adamw> upstream bug is https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753443
18:45:45 <kalev> it can definitely be fixed on yelp side if needed, it was more like we didn't have anyone with immediate yelp code knowledge around to fix this in 24h or how much it was we had
18:45:57 * adamw not entirely clear what the current status is for fedora's purposes
18:46:07 <adamw> it seems like it's been partly fixed upstream, but not fully
18:51:08 <adamw> any other business?
18:54:22 <adamw> alrighty then!
18:54:25 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:54:31 <lupinix> bye
18:54:37 <adamw> same time next week!
18:54:41 <adamw> #endmeeting