17:01:06 #startmeeting F27-8-blocker-review 17:01:06 Meeting started Mon Nov 27 17:01:06 2017 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:06 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:01:06 The meeting name has been set to 'f27-8-blocker-review' 17:01:06 #meetingname F27-8-blocker-review 17:01:07 #topic Roll Call 17:01:07 The meeting name has been set to 'f27-8-blocker-review' 17:01:19 * sumantro is here 17:02:14 morning folks, sumantro 17:02:16 * pschindl is here 17:02:33 * coremodule is here. Good morning adamw, sumantro, pschindl 17:02:36 sgallagh: ping 17:02:36 adamw: Ping with data, please: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_naked_pings 17:02:49 * siddharthvipul is here 17:02:58 good morning adamw coremodule pschindl :) 17:03:42 * kparal lurks 17:03:59 coremodule: Good morning 17:04:16 hi everyone 17:04:19 And good morning to adamw too :) 17:04:21 c'mon out, sgallagh, you can't hide 17:04:25 i was talking to you just a minute ago 17:04:26 :P 17:04:28 sumantro: good evening 17:04:41 everyone had a good weekend? 17:04:53 * sgallagh is here for the next 24 minutes 17:05:43 * adamw sends Top Men to fiddle with sgallagh's clock 17:05:44 mine was great , adamw how was yours ? 17:05:50 not bad thanks 17:06:05 * sgallagh sighs. Now I have to bury *another* pair of MIBs? 17:06:28 alrighty, bureaucracy alert 17:06:33 #chair sumantro coremodule sgallagh 17:06:33 Current chairs: adamw coremodule sgallagh sumantro 17:06:33 uh oh 17:06:45 #topic Introduction 17:06:45 Why are we here? 17:06:45 #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. 17:06:45 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 17:06:46 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 17:06:46 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 17:06:48 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 17:06:50 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 17:06:52 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria 17:06:54 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Beta_Release_Criteria 17:06:56 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Final_Release_Criteria 17:06:58 (also the F27 pages, for Server) 17:07:14 For Server Final, we have: 17:07:15 #info 1 Proposed Blockers 17:07:29 #undo 17:07:29 Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 17:07:15 : 1 Proposed Blockers 17:07:37 #info 1 Proposed Blockers (F27 Server) 17:07:42 #info 3 Proposed Blockers (F28 Beta) 17:07:50 and that's all 17:07:54 who wants to secretarialize? 17:08:04 only four bugs to do, and you get paid just the same as a normal week! 17:08:05 * coremodule will do it. 17:08:10 (that's 100% of 0) 17:08:13 that sounds like a good deal 17:08:14 thanks coremodule 17:08:21 #info coremodule to secretarialize) 17:08:24 #undo 17:08:24 Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 17:08:21 : coremodule to secretarialize) 17:08:27 #info coremodule to secretarialize 17:08:39 I want a raise. In fact, please double my salary. 17:08:39 one day, if i've been very good, santa is going to teach me to type. 17:08:42 DONE 17:08:47 \o/ 17:08:50 now i expect twice as much work 17:09:02 #info starting with the proposed Server blocker 17:09:08 adamw: So... you're lowering your expectations for me then? 17:09:21 moving along... 17:09:23 well, that depends if we're talking quality or quantity... 17:09:23 #topic (1517010) Domain controller role deployment fails due to FreeIPA package dependency issues in current Modular Server 17:09:23 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517010 17:09:23 #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-modular-release, ASSIGNED 17:09:45 let's see if this is still the case in today's compose 17:09:47 This is both obviously a blocker and should be fixed within the next hour. +1 17:09:57 adamw: It is, but I've got the fix in-flight as we speak 17:10:04 aha, ok. 17:10:07 It will be in the nightly compose tonight 17:10:16 so, that's good. clearly a blocker on the merits. +1 17:10:24 will be *fixed* in the nightly compose tonight 17:11:04 we hope :P 17:11:40 adamw: Will you settle for "if it's broken, it will be for a different reason"? :) 17:11:52 so, briefly i'd just like to mention that dnf bug i noticed on friday: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516990 17:12:02 i didn't propose it as a blocker yet, but if it's something that keeps getting worse, it may be 17:12:08 +1 17:12:16 so worth keeping an eye on 17:12:37 #info 1516990 may be something we need to keep an eye on going forward (an early stage of dnf setup taking a long time on modular images/installs) 17:12:41 +1 17:12:53 ok, so that's +4 17:13:06 adamw: Yeah, there's definitely an optimization missing somewhere. 17:13:41 I suspect it's not optimized for the "many repos" case that modularity is using under the hood. 17:13:49 proposed #agreed 1517010 - AcceptedBlocker (F27ServerFinal) - this is a clear violation of Basic criterion "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..." - domain controller is a release-blocking role 17:13:56 sgallagh: sounds likely. 17:14:12 And every time we add a new module, that time probably goes up 17:14:21 I'll discuss it with my team 17:14:22 ack 17:14:29 ack 17:14:35 ack 17:14:53 #agreed 1517010 - AcceptedBlocker (F27ServerFinal) - this is a clear violation of Basic criterion "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..." - domain controller is a release-blocking role 17:16:59 OK, that's all the Server proposals ATM 17:17:03 #info moving onto Fedora 28 Beta 17:18:06 hm, just a sec. let me see why the first two bugs have identical topics and see if i need to do some cleanup first 17:18:59 hum. one of the anaconda guys duped this, but i'm not 100% sure why. oh well, let's work through it. 17:19:07 #topic (1500992) All non-live install attempts using automatic partitioning fail on lower memory systems due to problem with swap partition handling 17:19:07 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500992 17:19:07 #info Proposed Blocker, lorax, MODIFIED 17:19:33 so i think this one is fixed 17:20:02 yeah, last rawhide compose passed 87 tests, far more than it did when this was around 17:20:09 so i'm gonna say let's close this and move on 17:20:13 any objections? 17:21:47 okay 17:21:53 #info this is clearly fixed now, we will close the bug 17:22:00 #topic (1501249) All non-live install attempts using automatic partitioning fail on lower memory systems due to problem with swap partition handling 17:22:00 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501249 17:22:00 #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED 17:22:10 this is a dupe of the previous one, which i'm not entirely sure why it was made 17:22:16 proposal: punt on it and i'll ask 17:22:28 punt 17:23:55 +1 punt 17:23:59 +1 17:24:45 proposed #agreed 1501249 - punt (delay decision) - we're not sure why a dupe of the previous bug was created, we'll check with the person who duped it before closing this 17:24:55 ack 17:25:00 ack 17:26:17 one more ack? 17:26:26 any old acks, any old acks, any any any old acks... 17:26:31 ack 17:26:32 ack 17:26:44 #agreed 1501249 - punt (delay decision) - we're not sure why a dupe of the previous bug was created, we'll check with the person who duped it before closing this 17:26:56 #topic (1508662) dac_override denials prevent start of 389-ds (FreeIPA) 17:26:56 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508662 17:26:57 #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, POST 17:27:54 +1 blocker, it interferes with FreeIPA 17:28:14 And now I need to run to another meeting 17:28:20 +1 17:28:55 hum, well, freeipa deployment is still failing on current rawhide, but it doesn't look like this is the cause any more. i'd best look into that 17:28:56 thanks sgallagh 17:30:04 +1 17:32:12 proposed #agreed 1508662 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is a 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..." 17:32:20 may as well accept it, if it turns out to be fixed, no harm done 17:34:49 any acks? 17:34:59 after acks we can all go home! 17:35:19 ack 17:35:28 ack 17:35:31 ack 17:35:42 #agreed 1508662 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is a 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..." 17:35:52 alright alright alright 17:35:58 ack! 17:36:00 #info that's all the proposed blockers we have 17:36:03 #topic Open floor 17:36:09 any other 27 Server / 28 business? 17:38:18 in that case, i guess we're done here 17:38:22 thanks for coming, everyone! 17:38:25 * adamw sets fuse 17:39:02 adamw thanks for hosting :) 17:42:13 thanks again 17:42:14 #endmeeting