17:01:11 <tflink> #startmeeting f18-alpha-blocker-review-1
17:01:11 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug  3 17:01:11 2012 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:11 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:15 <tflink> #meetingname f18-alpha-blocker-review-1
17:01:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f18-alpha-blocker-review-1'
17:01:20 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
17:01:29 <tflink> Who's ready for some blocker review fun time?
17:01:40 * jreznik is here :)
17:01:46 <adamw> yoooo
17:02:03 <adamw> sorry for brno folks that we didn't get around to planning a new meeting time
17:02:55 <tflink> we can propose a new time for next week, though
17:04:21 * jreznik can't talk for other brno guys, but it works for him, time to move home :)
17:04:59 <tflink> there was a request to either have it earlier in the day or not on friday
17:05:19 <Martix> tflink: +1
17:05:35 <jreznik> it's not a problem for me neither...
17:06:02 * tflink waits a few more minutes to see if we get any more people
17:07:58 <tflink> ok, lets get started
17:08:03 <tflink> #topic introduction
17:08:16 <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.
17:08:36 * nirik is lurking.
17:08:48 <tflink> We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:08:48 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:08:48 <tflink> The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:08:48 <tflink> #link http://supermegawaffle.com/blockerbugs/current
17:08:48 <tflink> The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:08:51 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Final_Release_Criteria
17:08:53 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:08:56 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:09:12 <tflink> #info 6 Proposed Blockers
17:09:12 <tflink> #info 0 Accepted Blockers
17:09:12 <tflink> #info 0 Proposed NTH
17:09:13 <tflink> #info 0 Accepted NTH
17:09:40 <tflink> normally, I'd ask if anyone had an issue with starting with proposed blockers but since that's all we have today ...
17:09:46 <tflink> #info (726886) gnutls-3.0.21 is available
17:09:47 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726886
17:09:47 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
17:09:49 <bugbot_> Bug 726886: unspecified, unspecified, ---, tmraz, NEW , gnutls-3.0.21 is available
17:10:13 * tflink is -1 blocker, -1 NTH on this since it's more of a FESCO/releng issue
17:10:34 <tflink> bah, topic is messed up
17:10:37 <tflink> #undo
17:10:37 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x27a75050>
17:10:38 <tflink> #undo
17:10:38 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x27a75bd0>
17:10:40 <tflink> #undo
17:10:40 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x27a75250>
17:10:54 <tflink> #topic (726886) gnutls-3.0.21 is available
17:10:54 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726886
17:10:56 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
17:10:56 <bugbot_> Bug 726886: unspecified, unspecified, ---, tmraz, NEW , gnutls-3.0.21 is available
17:11:28 <adamw> yeah, i don't see a blocker issue here.
17:11:33 <tflink> first bug in the new blocker tracking app :)
17:12:14 <akshayvyas> adamw +1
17:12:14 * jreznik trusts t8m as a guy who understands crypto stuff...
17:12:34 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 726886 - RejectedBlocker - Does not violate any of the F18 alpha release criteria and thus does not qualify as a blocker
17:12:37 <adamw> the blocker status was proposed at the time of commnet #21, which provides no justification
17:12:37 <adamw> ack
17:12:40 <nirik> ack
17:12:57 <akshayvyas> ack
17:12:58 <tflink> #agreed - 726886 - RejectedBlocker - Does not violate any of the F18 alpha release criteria and thus does not qualify as a blocker
17:13:05 <tflink> #topic (824191) nfsiso install hangs during reboot
17:13:06 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824191
17:13:06 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
17:13:07 <bugbot_> Bug 824191: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rvykydal, NEW , nfsiso install hangs during reboot
17:14:34 <tflink> I don't think this is alpha blocker material
17:15:49 <tflink> beta, maybe. alpha, no
17:15:50 <jreznik> yep
17:16:47 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 824191 - RejectedBlocker - installing via NFS is not a part of the alpha release criteria and thus this is not a blocker for F18 alpha. Re-propose as a blocker for F18 beta
17:16:50 <adamw> there's also the fact that anaconda is about to get newui, which changes stuff a lot. though possibly not this.
17:17:04 <tflink> yeah, I figured we could deal with that when the time comes
17:17:07 <akshayvyas> tflink agree :) adamw +1
17:17:17 <adamw> and yeah, NFS is beta: "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options"
17:17:37 <tflink> I imagine that we're going to be proposing more criteria changes as we progress through the F18 release
17:17:39 <jreznik> seems like fix exists now
17:17:52 <tflink> assuming that newui uses the same code, anyways
17:18:33 * jreznik can ask Radek but he's not in the office next week, vacations...
17:19:04 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:20:05 <jreznik> ask for more info - what's the status, how does it fit to the new ui?
17:20:43 <adamw> well, for alpha, we don't need info, it's clearly not alpha
17:20:45 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 824191 - RejectedBlocker - installing via NFS is not a part of the alpha release criteria and thus this is not a blocker for F18 alpha. Re-propose as a blocker for F18 beta and ask for details in bug (will it work with newui, was it merged to mainline)
17:20:47 <adamw> for beta status, maybe
17:20:48 <adamw> ack
17:20:57 <akshayvyas> ack
17:21:05 <tflink> #agreed - 824191 - RejectedBlocker - installing via NFS is not a part of the alpha release criteria and thus this is not a blocker for F18 alpha. Re-propose as a blocker for F18 beta and ask for details in bug (will it work with newui, was it merged to mainline)
17:21:16 <jreznik> ok
17:21:17 <tflink> #topic (830181) Auto-update must either not break system on reboot or should not be available at all
17:21:20 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830181
17:21:22 <bugbot_> Bug 830181: unspecified, unspecified, ---, hughsient, CLOSED RAWHIDE, Auto-update must either not break system on reboot or should not be available at all
17:21:23 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, CLOSED
17:21:35 <tflink> hrm, second bug in the tracker
17:21:39 <tflink> #undo
17:21:39 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x1a7e4450>
17:21:40 <tflink> #undo
17:21:40 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x1a7e4690>
17:21:42 <tflink> #undo
17:21:42 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x1a7e4950>
17:22:03 <tflink> #topic (835867) systemd-journald is running as kernel_t
17:22:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835867
17:22:05 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, ASSIGNED
17:22:06 <bugbot_> Bug 835867: unspecified, unspecified, ---, systemd-maint, ASSIGNED , systemd-journald is running as kernel_t
17:23:27 <tflink> what is the end effect of this? just avc messages or is systemd-jounald not working?
17:23:54 <jreznik> seems like avc
17:24:13 <tflink> c#22 mentions the systems failing
17:24:40 <jreznik> ah, I see it now
17:25:02 * tflink isn't sure this is a blocker unless we're switching to systemd-journald for the default syslog
17:25:13 <adamw> I found that 3.11.0-5 resulted in non-booting system, but 3.11.1 works fine.
17:25:17 <adamw> so we should ask people to re-test with 3.11.1.
17:25:43 <nirik> there's no plans to do that that I know of.
17:26:23 <adamw> i suspect it wasn't really the journald AVC that caused all the trouble, fwiw.
17:26:51 <tflink> or am I misunderstanding what's failing here? I thought that this was the binary syslog stuff
17:28:00 <tflink> adamw: I think that c#27 is asking for the re-test, assuming that 3.11.1 is newest
17:28:16 <tflink> any thoughts on blockery-ness?
17:28:57 <tflink> if it's causing non-bootable systems, I'm OK with blocker
17:29:01 <adamw> the fails i saw with 3.11.0-* were clearly blocker, as in, a live image couldn't boot to a login prompt
17:30:20 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 835867 - AcceptedBlocker - Causes systems not to boot properly and thus is a violation of the F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially su
17:30:21 <jreznik> if so, it's blocker
17:31:16 <adamw> ack\
17:31:35 <tflink> other ack/nak/patch?
17:31:52 <jreznik> ack
17:31:55 <Martix> ack
17:32:00 <tflink> #agreed - 835867 - AcceptedBlocker - Causes systems not to boot properly and thus is a violation of the F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported m
17:32:00 <akshayvyas> ack
17:32:15 <tflink> #topic (844504) FTBFS in Rawhide with gphoto 2.5.0
17:32:15 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844504
17:32:17 <bugbot_> Bug 844504: urgent, unspecified, ---, tbzatek, NEW , FTBFS in Rawhide with gphoto 2.5.0
17:32:18 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:32:47 <adamw> there's a couple of these that prevent compose of live images and would be criteria-breaking fails on the dvd too
17:33:01 <adamw> they're easy enough to work around, just by dropping the packages if necessary, but we need to track them
17:33:03 <tflink> I think there are only 2 proposed as blockers ATM
17:33:10 <adamw> 'a couple' = 2
17:33:18 <tflink> point taken
17:34:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 844504 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
17:34:14 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:34:20 <Martix> ack
17:34:23 <adamw> ack, for the deps
17:34:40 <jreznik> ack
17:34:42 <tflink> #agreed - 844504 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
17:34:59 <tflink> #topic (844510) FTBFS in Rawhide with gphoto 2.5.0
17:34:59 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844510
17:35:01 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:35:01 <bugbot_> Bug 844510: urgent, unspecified, ---, mclasen, NEW , FTBFS in Rawhide with gphoto 2.5.0
17:35:53 <tflink> so this is the same problem as 844504 just different symptoms?
17:36:52 <adamw> same bug, different package
17:36:53 <akshayvyas> i think dropping shotwell is not a god idea
17:37:04 <adamw> akshayvyas: it's obviously not the best option, but we can do it if we have to
17:37:28 <tflink> akshayvyas: it's better than not being able to build DVDs/lives, though
17:37:56 <akshayvyas> well ya i agree with that too
17:38:00 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 844510 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
17:38:05 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:38:06 <adamw> the best option is fix the ftbfs, second best is have a compat package, third best is drop the packages
17:38:08 <adamw> ack
17:38:11 <akshayvyas> ack
17:38:13 <Martix> ack
17:38:53 <tflink> #agreed - 844510 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
17:39:02 <tflink> OK, I think that's it for the proposed blockers
17:39:06 * tflink double checks
17:39:43 <tflink> yep, that should be all of them
17:39:52 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:40:11 <thm> not sure there will be a patch for shotwell in time.
17:40:52 <adamw> thm: an alternative is to have a compat package for gphoto
17:40:56 <adamw> that'd need to be reviewed, of course
17:41:25 <thm> should be doable.
17:43:04 <akshayvyas> well i think this time shotwell is fired from fedora
17:43:12 <akshayvyas> :)
17:43:32 <tflink> any thoughts on a new time for the blocker meetings?
17:43:47 <adamw> i don't want anything more than 2 hours ahead of the current time
17:43:52 <tflink> there'll be a thread on test@ before we change anything, though
17:43:58 <adamw> cos current time is 10am for me and you don't want to see me before 8am =)
17:44:07 <tflink> adamw: no meetings at 1am local time?
17:44:23 <adamw> heh
17:44:35 <akshayvyas> i think 1500 or 1600 UTC is good
17:45:42 * tflink doesn't have an issue with moving it up an hour or two
17:45:50 <tflink> either way, will start a thread on test@
17:46:16 * tflink assumes that there is nothing else, sets fuse for [0,5] minutes
17:46:37 <tflink> #info next blocker meeting will be next week, time TBD pending discussion on test@
17:52:25 <tflink> OK, it's been more than 5 minutes :)
17:52:33 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
17:52:36 <tflink> #endmeeting