16:00:01 <bcotton> #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues
16:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 12 16:00:01 2022 UTC.
16:00:01 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:01 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
16:00:02 <bcotton> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues
16:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
16:00:18 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
16:00:18 <bcotton> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution.
16:00:18 <bcotton> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help  contributors focus on the most important issues.
16:00:18 <bcotton> #link https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/prioritized_bugs/#_process_description
16:00:25 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
16:00:31 <mhroncok> .hello churchyard
16:00:32 <zodbot> mhroncok: Something blew up, please try again
16:00:35 <zodbot> mhroncok: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
16:00:36 <mhroncok> :)
16:00:48 <mattdm> hello!
16:00:54 <mattdm> I guess I won't try the zodbot way :)
16:01:42 <bcotton> hmmm
16:01:55 <bcotton> i guess this means we're not logging the meeting either?
16:02:20 <bcotton> stand by
16:02:25 <mhroncok> not necessarily
16:02:36 <mhroncok> it chnaged the meeting name and everyhting
16:02:42 <mhroncok> it might just have trouble with FAS
16:03:02 <bcotton> weird
16:03:21 <bcotton> because it didn't do the "meeting started" boilerplate...or at least that hasn't come through the bridge
16:03:29 <mattdm> yeah I think it's broken
16:03:37 <mhroncok> (17:00:02) zodbot: Meeting started Wed Jan 12 16:00:01 2022 UTC.
16:03:56 <bcotton> oh, there is is. i apparently wasn't paying attenion
16:04:06 * bcotton goes to refill coffee
16:04:07 <mattdm> ha and I JUST TRUSTED YOU
16:04:15 <mattdm> heh
16:04:25 <bcotton> your first mistake
16:04:51 <bcotton> okay, shall we?
16:04:58 <bcotton> #topic Common Bugs review
16:04:59 <bcotton> #info Let's start with a check of the Common Bugs pages for supported releases and see if any should be nominated as Prioritized Bugs
16:04:59 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F34_bugs
16:04:59 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F35_bugs
16:05:58 <mattdm> I don't think there are any new ones, unless edited into the wiki without a corresponding bugzilla entry
16:06:19 <bcotton> at least some of these are closed. i don't think the wiki gets updated often once the release has been out for a bit
16:06:38 <mattdm> Yeah this is an advantage of the New Proposed System
16:06:45 <bcotton> so let's move on to the ones that are actually nominated
16:06:49 <mattdm> +1
16:07:03 <bcotton> #topic Nominated bugs
16:07:03 <bcotton> #info 5 nominated bugs
16:07:03 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871664&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%3F
16:07:06 <bcotton> #topic Lenovo ThinkPad T490, unable to boot following clean install, stuck at splash screen
16:07:06 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955416
16:08:02 * mattdm read read read
16:08:54 <MarkPearson> I'm here to discuss that one if needed - but on a customer call right now - for a few more mins...trying to multi-task
16:09:06 <mattdm> This looks... worrisome
16:09:21 <MarkPearson> yes
16:09:35 <mattdm> bcotton_: let's move to different one and come back when mark can pay more attention?
16:09:43 <MarkPearson> Actually - all done. I'm all ears
16:09:50 <mattdm> Also, did mentioning Lenovo summon Mark? That's amazing. :)
16:09:52 <bcotton> ohai MarkPearson
16:10:06 <MarkPearson> My problem on that bug is we can't reproduce - so I can't pull in FW team support yet
16:10:07 <mhroncok> the reasoning to make this prioritized sounds reasonbale to me
16:10:13 <MarkPearson> Your wish is my command ;)
16:10:14 <mhroncok> "Proposing as a prioritized bug because: (a) it's a regression in at least shim, possibly the device firmware too (b) it affects fairly common hardware (c) other distributions aren't having this problem (yet) (d) it's taking too long to make some forward progress like even "ok we have a shim that spits out more debug info could you try this?""
16:10:48 <MarkPearson> I believe it impacts more than our systems too - but we seem to be the worst for some reason
16:11:00 <mattdm> +1 to prioritized, but we need a reliable way to reproduce?
16:11:59 <mattdm> We can say that in the bug, and I can bring it to the RH desktop team to see if anyone can reproduce there?
16:13:06 <mattdm> And MarkPearson — is "impacts more than Lenovo" a hunch or is there something we can point to on that
16:13:10 <mattdm> I mean, your hunches are probably good, but, you know :)
16:13:28 <MarkPearson> One of the threads pointed to a Dell system - but I can't remember which thread and where.
16:13:39 <MarkPearson> I'll see if I can find it - but it was definitely mostly Lenovo's
16:13:58 <MarkPearson> What's weird is I have Fedora on the majority of my systems - and I've not seen any issues....many platforms
16:14:08 <MarkPearson> We tested on two different T490's - both are good
16:14:23 <mhroncok> "I have the same issue on a Acer Aspire E1-731" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955416#c19
16:15:42 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 1955416 is accepted as a Prioritized Bug as it affects multiple popular hardware vendors.
16:16:07 <mhroncok> possibly affects?
16:16:44 <mattdm> I'll note this to the RH team -- unless, Mark, is there a thread open already?
16:17:33 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1955416 is accepted as a Prioritized Bug as it apparently affects multiple popular hardware vendors.
16:17:34 <MarkPearson> Peter Robinson is on the bug already - and he's the person I would reach out to so I haven't started a separate thread
16:18:43 <mattdm> Peter Robinson or pjones ?
16:19:34 <MarkPearson> Doh - pjones.
16:19:47 <mhroncok> there is a needinfo on pjones since 2021-06-08
16:19:52 <MarkPearson> Is it Friday yet?
16:19:54 <mhroncok> I don't think they read bugzilla emails
16:19:57 <bcotton> #action mattdm to follow up with Red Hat desktop team
16:20:27 <bcotton> i'll wait another moment before we move on to the next bug
16:20:28 <mhroncok> (oh sorry, mixed the date with another needinfo)
16:20:52 <mattdm> I'll talk to peter, and also others for reproducers.
16:20:59 <mhroncok> thanks
16:21:31 <bcotton> #topic Lenovo Ideapad 5 14alc05 Touchpad Randomly stops working
16:21:31 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019926
16:22:16 <mhroncok> I don't really know why this should be prioritized
16:22:50 <mattdm> is there any reason it should be secret?
16:22:58 <mhroncok> the lack of any response from the maintainers kinda worries me, but this seems like juts one user that might have hardware issues
16:23:09 <mhroncok> mattdm: there are some logs, so maybe becasue of that?
16:24:12 <bcotton> oh, i didn't notice that. i don't think so
16:24:43 <bcotton> fwiw, there's some history of this apparently https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/lenovo-ideapad-5-14iil05-not-work-touchpad/8733/15
16:25:02 <bcotton> although that behavior doesn't sound quite the same
16:25:31 <mattdm> MarkPearson: since you're around any opinion on this one? lenovo Ideapad 5 14alc05?
16:25:58 <MarkPearson> I can't access the bug I'm afraid and I'm limited what I cna do for Ideapads as they're not Linux certified.
16:26:02 <bcotton> also maybe https://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?325628-Lenovo-Ideapad-5-14ARE5-touchpad-not-working-cannot-wake-from-sleep
16:26:20 <mattdm> My overall response is: Yeah, we like to make sure all hardware works, but the Fedora kernel team can't possibly cover all of it; this is unlikely to be Fedora-specific... please take upstream and to Lenovo?
16:26:22 <MarkPearson> We do have another platform that we're looking at with similar - but no update on that yet...and it's wild speculation that it would be the same
16:27:16 <MarkPearson> I think the response is reasonable. If I can get the vendor information for the touchpad I can try and reach out that way - but it's always tricky on these ones sadly
16:29:09 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 2019926 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. This issue should be reported to the kernel upstream and to Lenovo. This specific hardware is not certified for Linux by Lenovo
16:29:09 <mattdm> Just searching for "MSFT0002:00 04F3:31B8" yields a lot of reports across a lot of distros
16:29:09 <dustymabe> hmm
16:29:09 <dustymabe> this time slot is usually for FCOS meetings?
16:29:19 <mhroncok> I don't think so
16:29:20 <mattdm> dustymabe: We got pushed here by the IoT meeting :)
16:29:22 <mhroncok> mayeb in another room?
16:29:30 <dustymabe> .nextmeeting
16:29:30 <zodbot> dustymabe: (nextmeeting <channel>) -- Return the next meeting scheduled for a particular channel.
16:29:36 <dustymabe> .nextmeeting #fedora-meeting-1
16:29:37 <zodbot> dustymabe: b'In #fedora-meeting-1 is Fedora CoreOS Group Weekly Meeting (starting in seconds)'
16:29:39 <zodbot> dustymabe: b'In #fedora-meeting-1 is Rust SIG Meeting (starting in 4 hours)'
16:29:43 <zodbot> dustymabe: b'In #fedora-meeting-1 is FPgM office hours (starting in 4 hours)'
16:29:46 <zodbot> dustymabe: - https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/location/fedora-meeting-1%40irc.libera.chat/
16:29:49 <mhroncok> starting in seconds
16:29:52 <mhroncok> ok then :)
16:30:03 <mhroncok> wrap it up? :)
16:30:12 <dustymabe> thank you and sorry!
16:30:17 <bcotton> we still have three more bugs
16:30:35 <dustymabe> we can try a different channel
16:30:36 <mattdm> there are FOUR "fedora-meeting-1" locations in Fedocal. That can't be helping.
16:31:00 <mattdm> dustymabe: If you could,t hat's be awesome, and we'll straighten it out for next time?
16:31:20 <mattdm> s/t//, s/hat/that/, s/s/d/
16:31:23 <dustymabe> send people to #fedora-meeting-2
16:31:25 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 2019926 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. This issue should be reported to the kernel upstream and to Lenovo. This specific hardware is not certified for Linux by Lenovo
16:31:49 <bcotton> dustymabe: ack
16:31:58 <mattdm> thanks dustymabe !
16:32:31 <bcotton> #topic Flatpak using excessive space in /var/lib/flatpak/appstream
16:32:31 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032528
16:32:31 <bcotton> #link https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/flatpak-using-much-more-storage-space-than-installed-packages/18160
16:33:13 <mattdm> +1 to this. It's bad.
16:33:29 <jhaiduce_> I'm the OP for that one FWIW
16:33:45 <bcotton> do we know how widespread it is? i checked my laptop yesterday and didn't see this behavior
16:33:52 <bcotton> welcome, jhaiduce_ !
16:34:14 <mattdm> I saw it on both of my main systems
16:34:23 <mattdm> One was just a little inflated, one was horrific
16:34:24 <lorbus> .hi
16:34:29 <zodbot> lorbus: lorbus 'Christian Glombek' <cglombek@redhat.com>
16:34:40 <travier> lorbus: go fedora-meeting-2
16:35:27 <jhaiduce_> I renamed /var/lib/flatpak/appstream just before posting the bug; the new /var/lib/flatpak/appstream has since accumulated to about 1/6 of what it was before (938 MB)
16:35:28 <aaradhak> .hi aaradhak
16:35:29 <zodbot> aaradhak: aaradhak 'Aashish Radhakrishnan' <aaradhak@redhat.com>
16:35:46 <mhroncok> FCOS meeting is in #fedora-meeting-2
16:35:48 <lorbus> oh heh, ty!
16:36:29 <bcotton> okay, i'm +1 to a prioritized bug. any objections?
16:38:14 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 2032528 is accepted as a Prioritized Bug
16:38:31 <mhroncok> ack
16:38:33 <bcotton> #topic USB Controller doesn't reconize the connected device(s)
16:38:33 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032895
16:39:45 <mhroncok> no opinion
16:39:58 <mhroncok> sounds bad for the user, but does not appear as if it affects many of them
16:40:31 <mattdm> Looks like the appropriate people are already aware and responded in the bug, and the reporter says they don't have any more ability to help troubleshoot
16:40:41 <bcotton> yeah, i'm inclined to reject and say "re-propose if it's widespread"
16:41:12 <mhroncok> afreed
16:41:17 <mhroncok> *agreed
16:41:24 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 2032895 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. It does not appear to be widespread and the maintainers are actively involved.
16:41:36 <mhroncok> ack
16:42:23 <mattdm> +1
16:43:17 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 2032895 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. It does not appear to be widespread and the maintainers are actively involved.
16:43:27 <bcotton> #topic "fedpkg lint" dies with rpmlint-2.0.0: rpmlint: error: unrecognized arguments: -f
16:43:27 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967821
16:44:02 <mhroncok> this is moving somewhere already
16:44:24 <mhroncok> I would not mark it priortiized thou
16:44:34 <mhroncok> an easy workaround exists: use rpmlint directly
16:44:59 <bcotton> this seems annoying for packagers and since a fix is already in the works, it's a good way to pad the stats :-)
16:45:27 * mhroncok notes to nominate some almost fixed bugs to make bcotton happy
16:45:37 <mhroncok> :D
16:45:40 <bcotton> that's a reasonable argument, too
16:45:49 <bcotton> mattdm: thoughts?
16:45:58 <mattdm> LOL
16:46:06 <mattdm> I think it actually is fixed already?
16:46:11 <bcotton> mhroncok++
16:46:11 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for churchyard changed to 2 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:46:57 <bcotton> the upstream PR is pending
16:47:42 <bcotton> but if mattdm doesn't feel strongly about accepting it, i can get behind rejecting because there's an easy workaround in place
16:47:46 <bcotton> and a fix pending
16:49:21 <mattdm> I am ambivalent. It does seem like stats padding :)
16:49:32 <mhroncok> (at the time this was proposed, there was no response, so it made sense)
16:49:40 <mhroncok> now it's moot
16:50:04 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 1967821 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug as there's an easy workaround and a pending fix
16:50:30 <mhroncok> +1
16:51:07 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1967821 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug as there's an easy workaround and a pending fix
16:51:22 <bcotton> hooray, that's the end of the line!
16:51:27 <bcotton> #topic Accepted bugs
16:51:27 <bcotton> #info 0 accepted bugs
16:51:27 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871665&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%2B
16:51:33 <bcotton> #topic Next meeting
16:51:33 <bcotton> #info We will meet again on 26 January at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1
16:51:42 <bcotton> anything else before we close out?
16:51:44 <mhroncok> or somewhere else
16:52:18 <mhroncok> #action bcotton to figure out the FCOS meeting conflict
16:52:22 <mattdm> thanks everyone!
16:52:31 <mattdm> bcotton++
16:52:31 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for bcotton changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:52:37 <mhroncok> bcotton++
16:52:37 <zodbot> mhroncok: Karma for bcotton changed to 5 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:52:39 <mattdm> mhroncok++
16:52:42 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for churchyard changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:52:44 <mhroncok> mattdm++
16:52:45 <zodbot> mhroncok: Karma for mattdm changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:52:48 <bcotton> i'll arm-wrestle dusty over it
16:52:50 <mhroncok> MarkPearson++
16:53:12 <bcotton> #endmeeting