16:02:41 <adamw> #startmeeting F27-blocker-review
16:02:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep  4 16:02:41 2017 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:41 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:02:41 <adamw> #meetingname F27-blocker-review
16:02:41 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:02:41 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:03:10 * kparal is here
16:03:30 * pschindl_wfh is here
16:04:12 * dominicpg is here
16:04:24 <kparal> kalev: around? we could ping you once 1477916 gets discussed
16:04:36 <adamw> mboddu: ping
16:04:36 <zodbot> adamw: Ping with data, please: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_naked_pings
16:04:40 <adamw> morning southern_gentlem
16:04:47 <Southern_Gentlem> afternoon
16:04:49 <adamw> .fire zodbot THE DATA WAS IMPLIED IMPUDENT ROBOT
16:04:49 <zodbot> adamw fires zodbot THE DATA WAS IMPLIED IMPUDENT ROBOT
16:04:51 <kparal> that's probably the only bug related to the workstation team
16:05:04 <adamw> man, i hope someone's compiling a list of all the '.fire' reasons somewhere
16:05:08 <adamw> i'd love to see that
16:05:17 <adamw> morning folks
16:05:37 <adamw> nirik: satellit: pbrobinson: sgallagh: nb: ping
16:05:49 <adamw> alright, well, that's a bunch of pinging, let's see who shows up to vote :P
16:06:05 <adamw> #chair kparal dominicpg
16:06:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw dominicpg kparal
16:06:19 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:06:20 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:06:20 <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.
16:06:20 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:21 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:21 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:06:23 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:06:27 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:06:29 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:06:31 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:06:33 <sgallagh> It's a US holiday today, FYI
16:06:33 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria
16:06:47 <adamw> sgallagh: canadian holiday too, yet here's muggins
16:06:48 <adamw> :P
16:06:53 <sgallagh> (I am not here. I am merely your hallucination)
16:07:04 <adamw> #info 8 Proposed Beta Blockers
16:07:04 <adamw> #info 5 Accepted Beta Blockers
16:07:06 <Southern_Gentlem> sgallagh,  no rest for the dedicated
16:07:18 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Final Blockers
16:07:19 <adamw> #info 5 Accepted Final Blockers
16:07:25 <adamw> who wants to be the secretary?
16:07:34 <adamw> the salary is free beer(*)
16:07:39 <sgallagh> I'll see what I can do, but I'm currently operating a riding mower at the same time.
16:07:39 <adamw> (*) the free beer is a lie
16:07:46 <adamw> that sounds extremely safe
16:07:55 <sgallagh> (That wasn't in response to secretarializing)
16:08:09 <Southern_Gentlem> sgallagh, when you get done swing by my house please
16:08:24 <kparal> I can do secretar* (can't spell that)
16:08:30 <adamw> now if you could just arrange to simultaneously update your twitter feed on a tablet while drinking beer through one of those hilarious hat-can-straw contraptions, i think we'll be all set
16:09:01 <adamw> #info kparal will secretariarariariariariari(INFINITE LOOP DETECTED)alize
16:09:17 <sgallagh> I lack the hat, otherwise I'd provide a picture ;-)
16:09:19 <kparal> that's exactly how I feel when trying to type it or say it
16:09:24 <adamw> hehe
16:09:42 <adamw> alrighty, starting with the proposed Beta blockers
16:09:48 <adamw> #topic (1486002) grub2-mkconfig does not work if xen.gz is installed.
16:09:48 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002
16:09:48 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
16:10:22 <adamw> wait, sorry
16:10:24 <adamw> wrong list
16:10:25 <adamw> #undo
16:10:25 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 16:09:48 : Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
16:10:29 <adamw> #undo
16:10:29 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0xbd8ea10>
16:10:32 <adamw> #undo
16:10:32 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0xcfc9190>
16:10:40 <adamw> let's try that one more time!
16:10:53 <adamw> #topic (1485831) shim package is not available, installation fails
16:10:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485831
16:10:53 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
16:10:57 <adamw> okay, this one's easy, it's fixed now.
16:11:01 <adamw> #info already fixed in recent composes
16:11:16 <kparal> +1 or skip
16:11:41 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker +1 that its fixed
16:11:52 <adamw> yeah, skipping
16:12:02 <adamw> #topic (1487856) UEFI installs fail to boot with anaconda-27.20-1 (due to EFI executable name mismatch)
16:12:02 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487856
16:12:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
16:12:22 <adamw> so, there's a slight wrinkle here, in that we don't really know exactly how the fallback path will behave in all cases
16:12:32 <adamw> i haven't had time to try an install on a real UEFI system to see if it helps
16:12:45 <adamw> but i'd still be +1 blocker as relying on it for all installs is a bad idea.
16:12:55 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:12:56 <dominicpg> adamw, I can confirm WS 20170901n1 spin in working on kvm uefi vm and server build is failing
16:13:02 <dominicpg> +1 blocker
16:14:03 <kparal> +1
16:15:03 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1487856 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - violates Alpha " Expected installed system boot behavior" requirements for some, possibly all, UEFI installs
16:15:23 <pschindl_wfh> +1
16:15:31 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:15:33 <pschindl_wfh> ack
16:15:54 <kparal> ack
16:16:11 <dominicpg> ack
16:16:24 <adamw> #agreed 1487856 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - violates Alpha "Expected installed system boot behavior" requirements for some, possibly all, UEFI installs
16:16:34 <adamw> #topic (1477916) Workstation boot.iso is 1.8 GB, seems to be ostree iso
16:16:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477916
16:16:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
16:16:59 <adamw> Ugh, we were meant to follow up on this one after next time, but too much stuff has been on fire for me to get to it
16:17:00 <adamw> did anyone else?
16:17:12 * adamw doesn't see any follow-up testing or proposed criteria
16:17:40 <kparal> kalev: still not here? :)
16:17:51 <Southern_Gentlem> define ostree please
16:18:06 <kparal> perhaps workstation wg should simply decide this one
16:18:10 <adamw> there's an ostree installer image
16:18:25 <adamw> which includes a full ostree system image that it just dumps onto the system
16:18:51 <adamw> the bits in the os/images/ tree in F26 are from that (we believe), not from the regular network install iamge
16:19:19 <adamw> the Workstation ostree installer image only started being composed late in the f26 cycle, which is why this issue emerged now
16:21:20 <adamw> so, punt this again?
16:22:26 <kparal> just to clarify, what are we waiting for? until somebody tests the pxe use case? or until workstation wg responds?
16:22:57 <adamw> the two things i was aware of were 1) test the pxe case 2) draft some kind of criterion this might actually break
16:23:23 <adamw> and i guess 3) see how releng feels about it and if the fix is short-term viable
16:23:51 <kparal> any volunteers for any of those?
16:24:22 <kparal> I can try pxe, just tell me how to recognize an atomic os :)
16:25:36 <adamw> errr...that's a...good question?
16:25:44 <adamw> i guess use some ostree-ish command?
16:25:49 <adamw> there must be one called ostree-something!
16:26:12 <kparal> hmm :)
16:26:15 <adamw> i can poke releng and workstation wg to chime in, i guess
16:26:34 <kparal> ok
16:26:37 <kparal> punt then
16:28:23 <kparal> that's interesting: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/27/Workstation/x86_64/os/images/
16:28:29 <kparal> boot.iso is 500MB
16:28:37 <kparal> but http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Workstation/x86_64/os/images/
16:28:43 <kparal> boot.iso is 1.8GB
16:28:53 <kparal> so it seems to affect only rawhide?
16:29:21 <adamw> did the ostree installer image for 27 actually build?
16:29:44 <adamw> i suspect not, which would explain it
16:29:46 <kparal> it's not present
16:29:53 <adamw> yeah, so that'd be why.
16:29:54 <kparal> sounds logical
16:30:07 <kparal> ok, I'll check past composes
16:30:23 <adamw> it may not be in the f27 pungi config (which would be a bug...)
16:30:29 <adamw> so we should check if it's failing or just not being attempted
16:30:51 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt for further investigation
16:30:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed we did not yet get around to testing this in more detail or drafting a revised criterion, so we will punt (delay) this one again and try to get it done this week
16:30:57 <adamw> er
16:30:58 <adamw> patch
16:31:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1477916 - we did not yet get around to testing this in more detail or drafting a revised criterion, so we will punt (delay) this one again and try to get it done this week
16:31:21 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:31:27 <dominicpg> ack
16:31:40 <pschindl_wfh> ack
16:31:58 <adamw> #agreed 1477916 - punt (delay decision) - we did not yet get around to testing this in more detail or drafting a revised criterion, so we will punt (delay) this one again and try to get it done this week
16:32:01 <kparal> this will be hard to test because ostree doesn't seem to be present in past F27 composes at all
16:32:28 <adamw> kparal: maybe check pungi-fedora config and file an issue there
16:32:37 <adamw> why not just test in rawhide, though
16:32:38 <adamw> #topic (1455561) ipa-server-install fails to obtain RA certificate from CA (CA_UNREACHABLE)
16:32:38 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1455561
16:32:39 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, freeipa, POST
16:32:48 <adamw> seems pretty straightforward +1
16:33:23 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
16:34:38 <dominicpg> +1
16:34:39 <pschindl_wfh> +1
16:34:54 <kparal> +1
16:36:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1455561 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully deployed..." for the release-blocking 'domain controller' role
16:37:29 <pschindl_wfh> ack
16:37:34 <kparal> ack
16:38:09 <dominicpg> ack
16:39:20 <adamw> #agreed 1455561 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully deployed..." for the release-blocking 'domain controller' role
16:40:44 <adamw> #topic (1487305) Raspberry Pi 3: run-initial-setup hangs
16:40:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487305
16:40:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, initial-setup, NEW
16:40:54 <adamw> pwhalen: pbrobinson: ping for this bug
16:41:34 <kparal> somewhere is a list of devices we block on on arm
16:42:36 <kparal> anyone knows the link?
16:43:02 <adamw> already checked it
16:43:03 <adamw> rpi 3 is on it
16:43:18 <kparal> can you post a link?
16:43:21 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Supported_Platforms
16:43:29 <kparal> thanks
16:43:58 <mkolman> IIRC all worked fine on the Pi 3 for F26
16:44:31 <kparal> seems +1
16:45:13 <mkolman> nothing really changed in this regard so it's likely a different component than IS that's causing this
16:45:13 <adamw> yeah, i was hoping we could double check with pwhalen or pbrobinson (who i believe also have rpi 3), but i guess they're out
16:45:26 <mkolman> yeah, IIRC at least one of them has it
16:45:48 <pschindl_wfh> +1
16:46:30 <adamw> i'm fine with +1 for now and we can always change it later if it turns out there's more to the story
16:46:43 <mkolman> yeah
16:46:44 <dominicpg> +1
16:47:01 <mkolman> and we need logs
16:48:58 <adamw> mkolman: can you update the bug with a needinfo request?
16:49:06 <mkolman> sure
16:49:12 <adamw> mkolman: thanks!
16:49:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1487305 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this sounds like a violation of Alpha criterion " A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system" for Raspberry Pi 3, which is a supported ARM platform for F27. If further testing indicates it's not so clear-cut, we will revisit
16:49:59 <kparal> ack
16:51:53 <pschindl_wfh> ack
16:52:05 <dominicpg> ack
16:52:35 <kparal> adamw: ostree fails to install bootloader on rawhide, so that's also no-go for testing atm
16:52:53 <adamw> fun!
16:52:59 <adamw> oh yeah, forgot about that
16:53:02 <adamw> i've actually filed it already
16:53:16 <adamw> #agreed 1487305 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this sounds like a violation of Alpha criterion "A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system" for Raspberry Pi 3, which is a supported ARM platform for F27. If further testing indicates it's not so clear-cut, we will revisit
16:53:27 <adamw> #topic (1484155) rdma-core excluding armhfp breaks many, many dep chains
16:53:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484155
16:53:28 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, rdma-core, NEW
16:53:38 <adamw> i think we've cleaned up enough of these that we can close the bug now, or at least un-blocker it.
16:53:45 <adamw> composes are running and nothing obviously critical is missing from the images.
16:53:49 <mkolman> adamw: needinfo added
16:53:54 <adamw> mkolman: thanks again
16:54:00 <mkolman> np :)
16:54:13 <adamw> #info this is pretty much solved now, at least to the point where it isn't blocking composes or obviously breaking critical functionality any more
16:54:21 <adamw> #info we will un-propose or close the bug
16:54:29 <adamw> sound OK?
16:54:41 <kparal> sure
16:54:43 <pschindl_wfh> sounds good to me
16:55:32 <adamw> #topic (1484566) Multiple 'map' denials prevent Cockpit from working
16:55:33 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484566
16:55:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, MODIFIED
16:55:43 <adamw> now, this one may be fixed, let me see
16:56:19 <adamw> hmm, nope, doesn't look like it
16:56:59 <adamw> yeah, still denied in current f27. so, +1
16:57:43 <dominicpg> +1
16:58:02 <pschindl_wfh> +1
16:58:46 <kparal> +1
16:59:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1484566 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of Alpha criterion "Unless explicitly specified otherwise, after system installation the Cockpit web management interface must be running and accessible on its default port (9090)"
16:59:54 * mkolman remembers there is a holiday in US today, so that might be why pbrobinson & pwhalen are not online
17:00:04 <adamw> mkolman: don't be ridiculous, we don't believe in holidays.
17:00:16 <adamw> :P
17:00:19 <kparal> ack
17:00:23 <pschindl_wfh> ack
17:00:28 <dominicpg> ack
17:00:57 <adamw> #agreed 1484566 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of Alpha criterion "Unless explicitly specified otherwise, after system installation the Cockpit web management interface must be running and accessible on its default port (9090)"
17:01:06 <adamw> #topic (1484569) 'map' denials prevent PostgreSQL starting
17:01:06 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484569
17:01:06 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, MODIFIED
17:01:38 <adamw> this one really *is* fixed, i think
17:01:41 <adamw> at least, openqa tests pass on prod
17:02:47 <adamw> #info per openQA tests of Fedora-27-20170903.n.0 , this is now fixed
17:03:24 <adamw> #info bug will be closed
17:03:25 <Southern_Gentlem> **crossing finger**
17:05:09 <adamw> alrighty, that's all the proposed Beta blockers
17:05:12 <adamw> moving onto proposed Final
17:05:45 <adamw> #info moving on to proposed Final blockers...
17:05:49 <adamw> #topic (1486002) grub2-mkconfig does not work if xen.gz is installed.
17:05:49 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002
17:05:49 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
17:07:11 <kparal> so, does this affect only xen environment?
17:07:58 <kparal> (we should've get rid of that xen criterion while we could:))
17:07:59 <adamw> "If I have xen installed"
17:08:06 <adamw> well, konrad said he promised to test
17:08:10 <adamw> which, i guess, is where this bug report is from :)
17:08:32 <adamw> so, I'm +1 i guess
17:08:39 <kparal> "if I have xen installed" means when he's running a xen VM?
17:09:29 <Southern_Gentlem> and the xen-hypervisor installed  you will not get the updated kernel in grub
17:09:36 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:09:52 <kparal> so this affects anyone who installs the xen package, right?
17:09:54 <adamw> kparal: me no understandy xen
17:09:58 <adamw> but i think so
17:10:10 <kparal> and the package is probably auto-installed when running in xen vm?
17:10:14 <adamw> i'm generally going to be +1 if konrad says it breaks the criterion
17:10:16 <adamw> i guess?
17:10:23 <pschindl_wfh> +1
17:10:28 <kparal> either way, it seems to be covered by that criterion
17:10:29 <kparal> +1
17:10:37 <adamw> yeah, feel free to ask him for more details in the note...
17:11:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1486002 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - we're happy to accept Konrad's assertion that this violates the Final criterion "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers utilizing Xen"
17:11:57 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:13:54 <pschindl_wfh> ack
17:14:42 <adamw> any more acks, any more acks
17:14:44 <adamw> any any any more acks
17:14:56 <dominicpg> ack
17:14:58 <dominicpg> :)
17:15:41 <kparal> ack
17:15:49 <kparal> sorry, was afk for a few mins
17:15:58 <adamw> #agreed 1486002 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - we're happy to accept Konrad's assertion that this violates the Final criterion "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers utilizing Xen"
17:16:08 <adamw> #topic (1484575) Filesystem resizing during install fails since 2.1.10 (likely due to removal of unconditional filesystem check)
17:16:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484575
17:16:08 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
17:16:48 <adamw> this is still under review, it looks like
17:17:03 <kparal> +1
17:18:08 <adamw> so, +1
17:19:25 <adamw> any more votes, any more votes
17:19:27 <adamw> :P
17:20:48 * kparal pokes pschindl_wfh dominicpg Southern_Gentlem
17:20:50 <pschindl_wfh> +1
17:21:29 <dominicpg> +1
17:22:37 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1486002 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of Final criterion "Any installer mechanism for resizing storage volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation"
17:22:41 <adamw> grr
17:22:41 <adamw> patch
17:22:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1486002 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clear violation of Final criterion "Any installer mechanism for resizing storage volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation"
17:23:50 <pschindl_wfh> ack
17:24:04 <kparal> ack
17:24:26 <adamw> #agreed 1486002 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clear violation of Final criterion "Any installer mechanism for resizing storage volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation"
17:24:38 <adamw> OK, last one:
17:24:39 <adamw> #topic (1484908) xenconsole does want to start
17:24:39 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484908
17:24:39 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, xen, NEW
17:25:14 <kparal> note that this is against rawhide
17:26:09 <adamw> yeah, but i suspect it's selinux 'map' stuff
17:26:12 <adamw> and was filed before branch
17:26:38 <kparal> I don't understand what's wrong
17:26:51 <kparal> a service doesn't work, ok, but what does it mean?
17:27:06 <kparal> does it fail https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria#Xen_DomU ?
17:28:28 <kparal> I guess we could ask for a better explanation
17:29:48 <adamw> yeah, i agree here
17:29:58 <adamw> let's ask for a more specific explanation of whether it violates the criteria
17:30:18 <adamw> so, i vote punt for more info
17:30:41 <pschindl_wfh> +1 for punting this
17:31:31 <dominicpg> +1 punt
17:32:14 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1484908 - punt (delay decision) - it's not clear whether this actually violates the criterion, so we will request a more detailed explanation from Konrad
17:32:22 <kparal> ack
17:34:12 <pschindl_wfh> ack
17:34:30 <adamw> #agreed 1484908 - punt (delay decision) - it's not clear whether this actually violates the criterion, so we will request a more detailed explanation from Konrad
17:34:41 <adamw> mclasen: we're all done :P
17:34:46 <adamw> for the record:
17:35:16 <adamw> #info #1486002 was incorrectly agreed as AcceptedBlocker (Beta), it was in fact AcceptedBlocker (Final)
17:35:29 <adamw> hmm
17:35:30 <adamw> #undo
17:35:30 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 17:35:16 : #1486002 was incorrectly agreed as AcceptedBlocker (Beta), it was in fact AcceptedBlocker (Final)
17:35:32 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:35:37 <adamw> #info #1486002 was incorrectly agreed as AcceptedBlocker (Beta), it was in fact AcceptedBlocker (Final)
17:35:43 <adamw> okay, so anything else for the fire pile?
17:36:43 <kparal> nope
17:41:37 <adamw> alrighty, thanks for coming then, everyone!
17:41:39 * adamw sets the fuse
17:43:32 <adamw> #endmeeting