17:02:01 <tflink> #startmeeting F16 Alpha Blocker Bug Review Meeting #5
17:02:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 12 17:02:01 2011 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:08 <tflink> #topic roll call
17:02:18 <tflink> alrighty, who's ready to go through some blocker bugs?
17:02:23 * nirik is lurking around if he can help any.
17:02:44 * brunowolff is here
17:03:10 <tflink> nirik: thanks
17:03:29 * Viking-Ice checks in...
17:03:42 <tflink> brunowolff, Viking-Ice: hello and welcome
17:04:28 * athmane is here
17:04:52 <tflink> athmane: welcome
17:05:17 * tflink will wait another minute or so before starting
17:05:45 <tflink> are we missing anyone? adamw?
17:07:02 <tflink> ok, thats long enough
17:07:04 <brunowolff> The rpm ticket may need specialist help when we get to it.
17:07:24 <tflink> brunowolff: OK, anyone in mind?
17:07:26 <Viking-Ice> not sure how long I can stay thou since I'm scheduled to throw a BBQ and get wasted in another town in another part of the country in two hours
17:07:46 <tflink> Viking-Ice: wait, you mean that's more fun than this? :-D
17:07:53 <tflink> in case anyone has forgotten ...
17:07:59 <tflink> #topic why are we here?
17:08:12 <tflink> #info
17:08:13 <brunowolff> I'm not sure, but when I went over it quickly it didn't look resolved. The other bugs are probably going to be OK.
17:08:31 <tflink> #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.
17:08:43 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
17:08:54 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:09:05 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:09:20 <tflink> any volunteers for secretary duty?
17:09:47 <tflink> or any preferences on what to start with?
17:10:17 <tflink> OK, I take that as a no on both so let's start with the proposed blockers
17:10:29 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729599
17:10:30 <buggbot> Bug 729599: unspecified, unspecified, ---, bcl, POST, PartitionException: msdos disk labels do not support partition names.
17:10:38 <tflink> #info PartitionException: msdos disk labels do not support partition names.
17:11:22 <Viking-Ice> I dont recall a criteria that says custom partitioning must work in alpha
17:11:28 <tflink> this sounds like an issue with co-existing with MSDOS during install
17:11:37 <tflink> yeah, I'm thinking the same thing
17:12:36 <Viking-Ice> I dont think this hit any defined criteria
17:12:41 <tflink> is installing to an existing partition custon?
17:13:05 <tflink> it might hit: The installer must be able to complete an installation using the entire disk, existing free space, or existing Linux partitions methods, with or without encryption or LVM enabled
17:13:24 <tflink> since the reporter was trying to install on an existing ext4 partition
17:13:30 <Viking-Ice> nope he's creating the partitions outside anaconda from the look of it
17:14:03 <Viking-Ice> "msdos disk labels do not support partition names."
17:14:28 <tflink> it's still an existing linux partition, no?
17:14:50 <adamw> yo
17:14:55 <adamw> sorry i'm a bit late
17:15:02 <tflink> adamw: welcome to the party
17:15:11 <adamw> ooh, it's a party?
17:15:29 <tflink> well, I have my blocker bug review party hat :)
17:15:36 <adamw> tflink: that criterion means the specific box labelled 'use existing linux partitions' in the installer
17:15:47 <adamw> tflink: not 'go into custom partitioning and design a scheme which uses your existing partitions
17:15:53 <adamw> custom partitioning is Final stuff
17:15:59 <tflink> oh, good point. i missed that
17:16:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729599 - custom partitioning is not part of the alpha release criteria. Re-propose as final blocker
17:16:50 <brunowolff> +1
17:16:54 <Viking-Ice> +1
17:16:59 <adamw> +1
17:17:11 <tflink> #agreed - 729599 - custom partitioning is not part of the alpha release criteria. Re-propose as final blocker - The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above
17:17:29 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729500
17:17:30 <buggbot> Bug 729500: high, unspecified, ---, richard, ASSIGNED, Error while installing updates on Fedora 16 Alpha RC3
17:17:40 <tflink> #info Error while installing updates on Fedora 16 Alpha RC3
17:17:52 <tflink> adamw: any luck reproducing this?
17:17:57 <adamw> i haven't re-tested yet
17:18:00 <adamw> it's on my list for today
17:18:15 <adamw> good news that no-one else has managed to hit it, though
17:18:19 <tflink> I tried updates on a i386 machine today and didn't hit the issue
17:18:28 <tflink> but that had been updated some from RC3 already
17:18:48 <Viking-Ice> I've not seen this on my RC3 DVD install
17:19:02 <Viking-Ice> then again I've not seen any update notification et al..
17:19:03 <adamw> cool
17:19:13 <adamw> update notifications are weekly now
17:19:17 <adamw> i do get one now and again
17:19:36 <Viking-Ice> I usually just update via yum on cli
17:19:38 <adamw> so, i don't mind if we leave this on till i re-test or take it off and i'll re-propose if i can find a dependable trigger
17:19:47 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729500 - Not enough reproductions to make a decision now, will hold off. If this has not been reproduced by next week, will close.
17:19:55 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:19:57 <adamw> sure
17:20:06 <adamw> although remember, if we're doing this again next week, it means we slipped again
17:20:06 <tflink> s/close/reject
17:20:08 <adamw> which wouldn't be good =)
17:20:19 <tflink> I left it as next week to include the go/no-go meeting
17:20:33 <brunowolff> +1 with 'reject' instead of 'close'
17:20:35 <adamw> ah right
17:20:36 <tflink> no, slipping more wouldn't be good
17:20:52 <tflink> #agreed - 729500 - Not enough reproductions to make a decision now, will hold off. If this has not been reproduced by next week, will reject as alpha blocker
17:21:04 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728576
17:21:05 <buggbot> Bug 728576: unspecified, unspecified, ---, bcl, ASSIGNED, python-imgcreate looks for /selinux which has moved to /sys/fs/selinux
17:21:13 <tflink> #info python-imgcreate looks for /selinux which has moved to /sys/fs/selinux
17:21:30 <Viking-Ice> hum which criteria does this one hit?
17:21:35 <adamw> i was asking that
17:21:47 <adamw> as long as dgilmore can produce working live images (which i haven't checked yet), don't think it hits any
17:21:55 <adamw> i was able to produce working live images with just the dracut fix
17:22:36 <tflink> yeah, there's nothing specific about SELinux in the criteria
17:22:40 <adamw> it would be good to know from dgilmore if he's able to produce booting lives on the official build hosts now...but right now it looks like a -1 to me
17:23:01 <Viking-Ice> -1 from me ( as long as releng can build images )
17:23:06 <tflink> but from which issue?
17:23:19 <adamw> yeah, i think we can reject for now and re-propose if it turns out to affect the official lives
17:23:19 <tflink> dgilmore: you around?
17:23:21 <adamw> tflink: ?
17:23:26 <dgilmore> tflink: yes
17:23:43 <adamw> dgilmore: have you tried a live compose with the dracut fix?
17:23:44 <tflink> dgilmore: are you able to build livecds on the official build hosts?
17:24:00 <dgilmore> the last lives i produced with the dracut update booted
17:24:14 <tflink> cool, thanks
17:24:17 <dgilmore> adamw: yes and yes
17:24:21 <adamw> dgilmore: cool
17:24:27 <Viking-Ice> reject...
17:24:29 <adamw> yup
17:24:57 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 728576 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria and is not preventing official livecd spins
17:25:02 <brunowolff> +1
17:25:13 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:25:58 <tflink> ack (for 3)
17:26:08 <tflink> #agreed - 728576 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria and is not preventing official livecd spins
17:26:22 <tflink> ok, I think that's it for the proposed blockers
17:26:27 <tflink> on to the proposed NTH
17:26:45 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726029
17:26:46 <buggbot> Bug 726029: unspecified, unspecified, ---, wwoods, NEW, [abrt] smolt-1.4.3-4.fc16 + kernel-3.x: smolt.py:283:__init__:TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
17:26:55 <tflink> #info [abrt] smolt-1.4.3-4.fc16 + kernel-3.x: smolt.py:283:__init__:TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
17:27:17 <adamw> so this is the 'smolt doesn't work in firstboot' bug i guess
17:27:37 <tflink> not just firstboot
17:27:40 <tflink> I hit it in abrt
17:27:43 <adamw> right
17:27:49 <dgilmore> adamw: does it cause firstboot to completely fail?
17:27:54 <adamw> dgilmore: no
17:27:58 <adamw> that'd be a blocker
17:28:02 <adamw> it just means you can't submit a smolt profile
17:28:10 <tflink> which is a minor impact to testing
17:28:17 <Viking-Ice> non et all
17:28:22 <adamw> i guess i'd be +1 to nth, as it'd fix up firstboot which we can't really fix with an update, and it looks like it can't hurt anything else...
17:28:28 <adamw> but it's a pretty weak +1.
17:28:40 <tflink> yeah, I'd be +1 if it's a small tested fix
17:28:40 <Viking-Ice> I'm leaning towards -1 on NTH
17:28:44 <adamw> as far as post-install abrt reports go, that could be fixed with an update.
17:28:50 <tflink> if it's anything large - wait for beta
17:28:59 <adamw> so only firstboot is really relevant to nth determination.
17:29:03 <adamw> tflink: the proposed patch is in the last comment
17:29:28 <tflink> ah, that is small
17:29:35 <adamw> i'm trying to think of the worst thing that could happen if we take it - it could cause firstboot to blow up entirely, i guess, but smolt is the last step of firstboot anyway...
17:29:52 <tflink> and smolt is already crashing when run
17:30:11 <tflink> I would assume that smolt wouldn't crash any worse with the proposed patch
17:30:30 <adamw> right...
17:30:34 <Viking-Ice> it's the risk with firstboot
17:30:52 <Viking-Ice> that's my -1 I meet murphy to many times in my lifetime
17:30:57 <adamw> heh, point
17:31:04 <Viking-Ice> s/meet/met
17:31:10 <adamw> i think it's a good idea to honor the safety first principle
17:31:14 <adamw> so...i think you argued me into -1
17:31:22 <tflink> for something that isn't vital, anyways
17:31:28 <adamw> yeah
17:31:47 <tflink> yeah, I'm barely +1 - not enough to count it as a vote
17:32:08 <Viking-Ice> smolt not working == affects stats,, However firstboot not working....
17:32:21 <Viking-Ice> brunowolff, dgilmore ?
17:32:30 <adamw> Viking-Ice: right. i can't see how it could cause firstboot not to work, but then of course, we all know about What Could Possibly Go Wrong =)
17:32:49 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 726029 - RejectedNTH - It would be nice to have smolt working for alpha but it could impact firstboot and the risk seems to outweigh the potential benefit
17:32:58 <adamw> ack
17:33:00 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:33:20 <tflink> #agreed - 726029 - RejectedNTH - It would be nice to have smolt working for alpha but it could impact firstboot and the risk seems to outweigh the potential benefit
17:33:38 <tflink> that was the one proposed NTH, on to the accepted blockers
17:33:54 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720070
17:33:55 <buggbot> Bug 720070: medium, unspecified, ---, dlehman, ON_QA, AttributeError: 'Iso9660FS' object has no attribute 'labelType'
17:34:03 <tflink> #info AttributeError: 'Iso9660FS' object has no attribute 'labelType'
17:34:16 <adamw> looks like this one is fixed
17:34:17 <tflink> I think this is fixed
17:34:23 <adamw> with the two reports, we can switch it to VERIFIED
17:34:43 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 720070 - Two reports of being fixed, move to VERIFIED
17:34:46 <adamw> ack
17:35:00 <tflink> #agreed - 720070 - Two reports of being fixed, move to VERIFIED
17:35:14 <Viking-Ice> hum does this one need karma
17:35:17 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:35:18 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720070
17:35:19 <buggbot> Bug 720070: medium, unspecified, ---, dlehman, ON_QA, AttributeError: 'Iso9660FS' object has no attribute 'labelType'
17:35:33 <tflink> #info Wrongly SELinux-labelled files in /lib(64) prevent boot of Fedora 16 Alpha RC systems with SELinux enabled
17:35:51 <tflink> yeah, I was thinking about spinning up an updated boot.iso today if we don't get another RC
17:36:00 <tflink> waiting for fixes for another bug, though
17:36:37 <tflink> this looks like another one that can be moved to VERIFIED
17:36:41 <adamw> yup
17:36:53 <adamw> i tested the fix, it worked
17:37:03 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 728863 - Two reports of being fixed, move to VERIFIED
17:37:17 <tflink> #agreed - 728863 - Two reports of being fixed, move to VERIFIED
17:37:24 <adamw> er
17:37:30 <adamw> i think we got stuck in the wayback machine
17:37:35 <adamw> you topiced 720070 again =)
17:37:49 <tflink> details ...
17:38:02 <adamw> hehe
17:38:18 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728863
17:38:19 <buggbot> Bug 728863: unspecified, unspecified, ---, harald, ON_QA, Wrongly SELinux-labelled files in /lib(64) prevent boot of Fedora 16 Alpha RC systems with SELinux enabled
17:38:25 <tflink> #info using the right bug this time
17:38:31 <tflink> #info Wrongly SELinux-labelled files in /lib(64) prevent boot of Fedora 16 Alpha RC systems with SELinux enabled
17:38:39 <tflink> #agreed - 728863 - Two reports of being fixed, move to VERIFIED
17:38:54 <tflink> extra mess in the minutes, I guess
17:39:06 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728657
17:39:07 <buggbot> Bug 728657: unspecified, unspecified, ---, than, VERIFIED, File conflicts in Fedora 16 Alpha RC1: kdesdk (kdesdk-libs not correctly obsoleted?)
17:39:07 <adamw> you can try using undo but i always get screwed up with that
17:39:21 <tflink> #info File conflicts in Fedora 16 Alpha RC1: kdesdk (kdesdk-libs not correctly obsoleted?)
17:39:25 <adamw> i think we can probably close this now
17:39:32 <tflink> yeah, I'm being lazy :)
17:39:38 <adamw> dgilmore: it got sorted out in rc3 by the earlier kdesdk not being available for compose, right?
17:39:39 <tflink> by not using #undo
17:39:49 <dgilmore> adamw: rigth
17:39:50 <dgilmore> right
17:40:05 <tflink> from comment #10 - Robatino confirmed this is fixed in RC2
17:40:17 <adamw> so we can just close this, i think, no more action
17:40:24 <tflink> #agreed - 728657 - coinfirmed as fixed; move to VERIFIED
17:40:29 <tflink> #undo
17:40:29 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0xcf5260c>
17:40:34 <tflink> #agreed - 728657 - confirmed as fixed; move to VERIFIED
17:40:55 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723666
17:40:56 <buggbot> Bug 723666: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dvlasenk, VERIFIED, libreport-python-2.0.5 FILE conflicts with report-gtk-0.23
17:41:06 <tflink> #info libreport-python-2.0.5 FILE conflicts with report-gtk-0.23
17:41:19 <tflink> again, confirmed as fixed
17:41:25 <dgilmore> i excluded report* from the compose
17:41:40 <adamw> so just need to make sure to do that again for rc4 i guess
17:41:43 <tflink> that might explain one of hte other issues
17:41:52 <adamw> tflink: not really
17:41:53 <dgilmore> I do need a ticket from the packagers saying that they want it blocked
17:42:07 <tflink> wait, I'm getting report and libreport confused
17:42:08 <Viking-Ice> gotta run later...
17:42:17 <adamw> tflink: anaconda is supposed to be switched to libreport. (report and libreport aren't complementary, libreport replaces report)
17:42:19 <tflink> Viking-Ice: ok, thanks for your time and have fun
17:42:19 <adamw> cya viking, thanks!
17:42:48 <adamw> so, we can leave this or close it, but no real action needed from us i guess
17:43:24 <dgilmore> adamw: no the developers need to do the right thing (TM)
17:43:32 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 723666 - issue is fixed if report* is blocked from the compose but need ticket from packagers to request blocking
17:44:15 <adamw> dgilmore: well, by us i meant qa/releng
17:44:31 <adamw> but yeah, if you can put a nag in the ticket for them to follow procedure to retire report that'd be good
17:45:16 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 723666 - issue is fixed if report* is blocked from the compose but need ticket from packagers to request blocking before closing the bug
17:45:20 <brunowolff> I just tested an install of report-gtk on an f16 system and got:
17:45:23 <brunowolff> Package report-gtk-0.23-0.fc16.i686 is obsoleted by libreport-gtk-2.0.5-4.fc16.i686 which is already installed
17:45:59 <adamw> ack
17:46:17 <adamw> brunowolff: yeah, obsoletes are in place but that's not enough for various reasons, it needs to be blocked
17:46:22 <tflink> any other ack/nack/patch?
17:46:27 <adamw> it's just standard procedure
17:46:27 <brunowolff> ack
17:46:36 <tflink> #agreed - 723666 - issue is fixed if report* is blocked from the compose but need ticket from packagers to request blocking before closing the bug
17:46:51 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729528
17:46:52 <buggbot> Bug 729528: urgent, urgent, ---, jmoskovc, NEW, Unable to configure events in reporter to forward in anaconda for F-16-Alpha-RC3
17:46:52 <dgilmore> adamw: indeed, i put a comment in the bug report pointing out the procedure
17:46:59 <tflink> #info Unable to configure events in reporter to forward in anaconda for F-16-Alpha-RC3
17:47:12 <tflink> OK, this is another issue with getting traces out of anaconda
17:47:47 <adamw> so, we get some meet
17:47:48 <adamw> meat
17:48:31 <dgilmore> adamw: i have ribs to cook tomorrow
17:48:32 <dgilmore> that do?
17:48:37 <adamw> heh
17:48:40 <tflink> I've been talking to jmoskovc about it and he's hoping to have a fix built later today or tomorrow
17:48:45 <tflink> I attempted to hack in a fix myself and hit some other interesting issues with actually accessing bugzilla
17:49:06 <tflink> now that I've switched back to the correct channel ...
17:49:22 <adamw> tflink: involving gnome-keyring?
17:49:32 <tflink> adamw: not sure
17:49:40 <adamw> okay
17:49:41 <tflink> I was getting SSL errors out of libcurl
17:49:50 <adamw> if you guys could keep the bug updated with the discussion that'd help
17:49:52 <tflink> so the RPC calls were failing
17:50:13 <adamw> right now it looks like not a lot is happening, and we could really do with a fix for this today
17:50:22 <adamw> getting all the validation done from monday would be tight
17:50:25 <tflink> I wasn't sure if I should update it with my findings since I was hacking up lorax
17:50:55 <adamw> data is always useful
17:51:19 <tflink> #action tflink will update 729528 with findings from hacking
17:51:55 <tflink> #info jmoskovc is hoping for a fix build today or tomorrow
17:52:41 <adamw> okay
17:53:17 <adamw> hi jmoskovc
17:53:33 <jmoskovc> hi
17:54:21 <tflink> jmoskovc: I don't think that there's been much else, now that I think harder about it
17:54:25 <adamw> so we're on the libreport-in-installer bugs
17:54:33 <adamw> really just to say that we need them fixed yesterday =)
17:54:38 <adamw> it'd be really good if we could have a fix int oday
17:55:23 <jmoskovc> I have the fixed ready, will push it to fedora git later today
17:55:27 <jmoskovc> *fixes
17:55:39 <adamw> awesome
17:55:43 <adamw> the fix is in what, lorax?
17:55:59 <jmoskovc> both lorax and libreport
17:56:07 <adamw> ok
17:56:16 <jmoskovc> lorax because of missing reporters
17:56:19 <adamw> so for libreport, we'll need a build in koji and an update in bodhi
17:56:21 <tflink> cool, I'll keep an eye on the bug and build a test iso later today
17:56:26 <adamw> for lorax i guess we'll find someone else to do that
17:56:35 <jmoskovc> libreport because of problems with anaconda text ui
17:57:31 <tflink> do we need to make sure someone is around to review/commit the lorax change?
17:57:33 <adamw> did you check into the issues tflink was having with libcurl?
17:57:44 * tflink isn't sure if jmoskovc can do the commit
17:57:48 <jmoskovc> not yet, he just told me few mins ago
17:57:54 <adamw> worst case i can do it - i'm a provenpackager
17:58:00 <adamw> but jlaska hates it when i do that. =)
17:58:14 <tflink> I never reported it since I figured that the errors were due to my hacking wrong :)
17:58:23 <jlaska> adamw: with great power, comes great responsibility! :D
17:58:29 <adamw> bcl, clumens and dcantrell are approved committers on it
17:58:34 * tflink will report the issue after the meeting
17:58:35 <adamw> so i guess we can get one of them to do the update
17:58:46 <jlaska> yeah, they should have the skillz needed
17:58:51 <jmoskovc> adamw: the patch for lorax is on anaconda devel and it's acked, so it should be ok pushing it to fedora git
17:59:10 <adamw> jmoskovc: right, it's just about getting an actual package update built and submitted
17:59:21 <jmoskovc> y
18:00:19 <tflink> so we need to find someone to do it?
18:00:35 <adamw> ideally, yeah - like i say, one of those anaconda guys should be able to.
18:01:03 <tflink> anyone want to volunteer for pestering? Otherwise I can do it
18:01:06 <adamw> so, please keep the bug reports up to date, and we'll work it as we go
18:01:12 <adamw> i can do it too, either way
18:01:17 <adamw> let's just work off the bug reports
18:01:23 <tflink> ok
18:02:07 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729528 - fix is in process, need to update bug with info and will hopefully verify by monday
18:02:13 <tflink> ack/nack/patch?
18:02:31 <adamw> s/monday/tonight/ :)
18:02:33 <adamw> ack
18:02:40 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729528 - fix is in process, need to update bug with info and will hopefully verify today
18:02:51 <adamw> aim high!
18:03:00 <dgilmore> adamw: i want to make rc4 tonight
18:03:02 <dgilmore> :)
18:03:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729528 - fix is in process, need to update bug with info and verify today
18:03:28 <tflink> proposed #action adamw to verify all outstanding blockers
18:03:38 <tflink> #agreed - 729528 - fix is in process, need to update bug with info and verify today
18:03:50 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729537
18:03:51 <buggbot> Bug 729537: unspecified, unspecified, ---, mgracik, POST, Anaconda cannot report crashes in text mode in F16 Alpha RC3 due to missing report-cli
18:04:00 <tflink> #info Anaconda cannot report crashes in text mode in F16 Alpha RC3 due to missing report-cli
18:04:08 <tflink> I think this one is in the same boat as the last one
18:04:16 <adamw> yeah, i think they're being taken together
18:04:18 <tflink> waiting on a build for libreport
18:04:20 <adamw> right jmoskobc?
18:04:44 <tflink> #agreed - 729528 - fix is in process, once fix has been build will verify today
18:05:01 <tflink> jmoskovc: I assume that you're handling the new build for libreport
18:05:03 <tflink> ?
18:05:09 <jmoskovc> 729537 and 729528 are actually dupes
18:05:32 <adamw> okay
18:05:40 <adamw> we can dupe them off then
18:05:41 <tflink> ok, which one do you want to dupe out?
18:05:43 <jmoskovc> even though it has different symptoms, the problem behind it is the same
18:05:47 <tflink> #undo
18:05:47 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0xd3370cc>
18:06:47 <tflink> #agreed - 729528 - duplicate of 729528, will track progress in that bug
18:06:54 <jmoskovc> i closed 729528
18:06:59 <jmoskovc> ok
18:07:23 * tflink grumbles ... people making me type more ... :)
18:07:28 <tflink> #undo
18:07:28 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0xe9e902c>
18:08:59 <tflink> #agreed - 729537 - duplicate of 729528 which has been closed. progress will be tracked here - build pending, will verify once those builds are available
18:09:14 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690930
18:09:15 <buggbot> Bug 690930: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anton, ON_QA, microcode_ctl loops, impossible to boot
18:09:24 <tflink> #info microcode_ctl loops, impossible to boot
18:09:27 <adamw> this one we're still just monitoring
18:09:41 <adamw> we should just leave it alone till alpha now
18:09:54 <adamw> we can probably take it off the list
18:09:59 <tflink> yep, looks like it still needs testing but if there have been no new repros, I'm guessing that its probably fixed
18:10:17 <adamw> it's the one where the stuff in alpha is 'broken' but in a way that doesn't cause any major problems
18:10:27 <adamw> if we'd taken the original, bad, fix it would've killed athlons on boot
18:10:32 <tflink> I thought they had actually fixed it
18:10:35 <adamw> there's a better fix now but it's too late to screw around with that for alpha
18:10:43 <adamw> i think the real fix came after freeze
18:10:46 <tflink> nvm, you're right
18:10:52 <adamw> so what we have in alpha is the old 'broken-but-okay' stuff
18:11:25 <tflink> do we want to deal with it now or just wait until closer to wednesday
18:11:26 <tflink> ?
18:11:34 <adamw> i think we can just take it off the list now
18:11:40 <adamw> since there's no way we'll accidentally pull the wrong thing
18:12:08 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 690930 - this has been fixed to be "good enough" for alpha, remove from blocker list
18:12:50 <adamw> ack
18:12:56 * tflink wonders if it should be re-proposed for beta or final
18:13:10 <tflink> eh, I'm on the cc list. will keep an eye on it
18:13:16 <tflink> #agreed - 690930 - this has been fixed to be "good enough" for alpha, remove from blocker list
18:13:23 <tflink> ok, last one
18:13:28 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728707
18:13:29 <buggbot> Bug 728707: urgent, unspecified, ---, pmatilai, NEW, on package upgrade RPM is removing empty directories accidentally
18:13:39 <tflink> #info on package upgrade RPM is removing empty directories accidentally
18:14:00 <tflink> brunowolff: it sounded like you were interested in this one?
18:14:22 * tflink hadn't gotten around to testing the new rpm build
18:14:36 <adamw> this is the other biggy blocking rc4 i guess
18:14:38 <brunowolff> Not so much interested as that I thought it needed input from the rpm guys.
18:15:07 <adamw> so basically we need to test an install with the latest 'rpm' package, do an update, and see if it works
18:15:14 <adamw> seems like they think a post-freeze update may fix this
18:15:53 <tflink> sounds like it is indeed a dupe of bug 725137
18:15:54 <buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=725137 unspecified, unspecified, ---, pmatilai, ASSIGNED, Fails to start due to /var/empty/sshd
18:16:20 <adamw> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpm-4.9.1-3.fc16 is available as an update
18:16:30 <adamw> we could pull that into an install and test
18:16:57 <tflink> yeah, sounds like we have several candidates for an updated install this afternoon
18:17:34 <adamw> hum
18:17:39 <adamw> i just wanna check what rc3 has
18:17:41 <adamw> gimme a sec
18:17:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 728707 - need to test installation with new RPM package in order to verify fix
18:18:07 <adamw> well, wait a tick
18:18:48 <adamw> okay, yeah, rc3 has rpm-4.9.0-10.fc16.x86_64
18:19:05 <adamw> i just wondered if we already *had* 4.9.1-2 as it was built quite a while back. but seems not.
18:19:11 <adamw> so ack
18:19:22 <adamw> who wants to do that testing? i can take it if no-one else wants it
18:19:38 <tflink> #agreed - 728707 - need to test installation with new RPM package in order to verify fix
18:19:57 <tflink> what all do we need to test?
18:20:24 <tflink> there is the libreport/lorax issue and the rpm issue, right?
18:20:31 <adamw> yeah, i think that's it
18:20:36 <tflink> at least those are the biggest ones that I'm seeing ATM
18:20:36 <adamw> and a general test of the updated anaconda maybe, for karma
18:20:41 <adamw> but those two are the big ones
18:21:03 <tflink> I've already been working on the libreport/lorax one, so I can keep going with that
18:21:03 <adamw> do you want to follow libreport for now and i'll try and do rpm?
18:21:05 <adamw> okay
18:21:10 <tflink> yep, works for me
18:21:24 <adamw> alright...looks like we have a plan
18:21:24 <tflink> alrighty, I think that we got them all for now
18:21:30 <tflink> #topic open discussion
18:21:34 <adamw> dgilmore, we'll try and get you all the fixes for tonight
18:22:11 <tflink> we have our work cut out for us, so unless someone brings something up, #endmeeting in 3 minutes
18:23:02 <dgilmore> adamw: id appreciate it
18:24:35 * adamw really wishes qemu fricking worked in f16
18:24:39 <adamw> and jforbes wasn't on vacation
18:24:40 <adamw> grr
18:24:56 <tflink> huh, I hadn't tried that yet
18:25:04 <tflink> my F16 machine is old - doesn't support KVM
18:25:11 <adamw> i'm having to do all my virt testing on my f15 laptop
18:26:28 <tflink> ok, that's all she wrote
18:26:34 <tflink> thanks everyone for participating!
18:26:40 <tflink> #endmeeting