17:01:29 #startmeeting F21-blocker-review 17:01:29 Meeting started Mon Nov 24 17:01:29 2014 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:01:29 #meetingname F21-blocker-review 17:01:29 The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review' 17:01:30 #topic Roll Call 17:01:34 who's around? 17:01:40 * jreznik_2nd is here, again 17:01:43 * kparal spins around 17:02:21 see what adamw did there? He suggested a time that gave him just enough time to escape somewhere... 17:02:25 :p 17:02:39 #chair jreznik_2nd kparal adamw 17:02:39 Current chairs: adamw jreznik_2nd kparal roshi 17:02:50 * nirik is here. 17:03:07 #chair nirik 17:03:07 Current chairs: adamw jreznik_2nd kparal nirik roshi 17:03:24 #topic Introduction 17:03:24 Why are we here? 17:03:24 #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. 17:03:28 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 17:03:30 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 17:03:33 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 17:03:35 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 17:03:38 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 17:03:40 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria 17:03:43 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria 17:03:46 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria 17:03:53 * smccann is here 17:03:55 alright, first up 17:04:01 welcome smccann ;) 17:04:04 #topic (1158533) selecting one disk from VG spanning over multiple disks causes troubles 17:04:07 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158533 17:04:10 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:05:02 * kparal asked dlehman to join us 17:05:05 * pschindl is here too 17:05:14 #chair pschindl 17:05:15 Current chairs: adamw jreznik_2nd kparal nirik pschindl roshi 17:05:47 kparal: btw. vpodzimek told me, he knows what's the issue and promised fix for it to me (unless dlehman will be faster ;-) 17:06:04 jreznik_2nd: this bug? 17:06:15 remember it was split in two 17:06:17 kparal: he told me he was looking on both 17:06:45 but you're right I asked specificaly for the second one, already accepted 17:06:58 i believe there was some discussion on IRC to the effect that they kind of consider this 'user error' and the only 'fix' would be to error out better 17:07:03 they are different, mcsontos claims 17:07:09 that was from i think dlehman though, not a brno folk 17:08:00 disk spanning vg's seems like a really bad idea, but I guess there's some use cases. 17:08:42 nirik: doesn't seem that odd to me, it's what you get with a multiple disk guided installation. 17:09:05 i guess this strictly counts as a blocker under 'reject invalid operations gracefully' or whatever that criterion is, but i'm kinda starting to think that one was a mistake 17:09:29 well, the sysadmin in me would never have a single disk break your entire machine... ;) but thats just my background. 17:10:01 this crashes during installation, right? 17:10:39 from the traceback i think so. 17:10:43 yeah. 17:11:06 I don't see a simple reproducer 17:11:10 can somebody tell me? 17:11:31 I think I have installed to multiple disks and then just to a single disk in the past, and it always worked 17:11:42 using default layout, thus lvm 17:12:36 2 disks connected, but not clear what was on them before I guess? 17:13:05 bcl: do you know something about this? just read the stuff from satellit, the rest was split into a different bug 17:14:07 kparal: did you have the disks that made up a VG all connected, but only select one of them as an install target? 17:14:13 sdb seems to be a msdos... 17:14:15 that seems to me to be the case ehre 17:14:16 format = existing None 17:14:24 adamw: yes. but I'd need to verify 17:15:57 kparal: I think this is one of the 'too broken to handle' category that dlehman was planning on catching. 17:15:58 oh, right, thats gpt/msdos... 17:16:15 But you'd have to ask him to be sure. 17:16:44 bcl: is he in this week? 17:16:44 I think we need to reproduce it first in order to vote on it. at the moment I'm very unclear what exactly is going on, and what uses cases are exactly affected 17:16:45 I think so. 17:17:26 There's a number of these kinds of things that hit QA somewhat consistently because they're good a breaking things but that normal users will rarely see. 17:17:32 yeah, the case that got split out seems clearly defined, but i'm not sure we have the data on exactly how to reproduce satellit's 17:17:41 so, punt for now and try and clarify? 17:18:00 yeah, i'd go for that 17:18:20 first thing to try i guess is do a guided multi-disk install of f20 or f21 then run installer again and pick only one of the disks as an install target, see if that reproduces it 17:18:29 if not, it's gotta be something more complicated than that 17:18:45 proposed #agreed - 1158533 - Punt - Work is still ongoing to get a solid set or reproduction steps for this. Will revisit next meeting. 17:19:02 proposed #agreed - 1158533 - Punt - Work is still ongoing to get a solid set of reproduction steps for this. Will revisit next meeting. 17:19:08 s/or/of/ 17:19:15 +1 17:19:18 adamw: I'm trying that now 17:19:20 +1 17:19:26 ack 17:19:27 +1 17:19:34 or ack, is better :) 17:19:37 #agreed - 1158533 - Punt - Work is still ongoing to get a solid set of reproduction steps for this. Will revisit next meeting. 17:20:10 #topic (1165781) minimum-sized workstation installation results in a broken system (0% free space, GNOME not working) 17:20:13 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165781 17:20:16 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:20:57 as commented in the bug i'm inclined to -1 on this. 17:21:29 As am I/ 17:21:31 . 17:21:48 -1, seems like 17:21:51 would be nice to have some heurestics but it's not blocker for me, -1 17:21:53 I don't oppose that, but I don't think that trying to create fedora installation as small as possible is that edge-case use case 17:21:58 No matter what we do it's going to be wrong for someone. 17:22:12 yeah, and if there's a hard coding people will be mad they can't override it. ;) 17:22:17 rather, seems like "when I try to break it - it breaks" 17:22:19 bcl: the point is to boot into gnome, not to be right for everyone 17:22:37 kparal: if you want to do something like that, you can just experiment 17:23:08 so I guess there was enough space to have rpm ok with installing, but not enough after that to be usable? 17:23:08 kparal: then resize larger :) For gnome 100M won't matter. For a virt it could be very annoying. 17:23:15 nirik: yes 17:23:30 bcl: if anaconda tells user, I'd be more than happy 17:23:39 is this anything new since f20? 17:23:47 no 17:23:48 it doesn't have to forbid it, just help the user avoid the mistake he doesn't even know about 17:23:51 but if we make that so it's 99% full and you can login, but can't save a document... 17:24:03 ie, how much space is 'enough' 17:24:11 right. we can't know. 17:24:15 yep 17:24:22 nirik: that's why I proposed some small hardcoded number like 500 MB 17:24:27 And any padding attempts will be wrong for other use cases. 17:24:52 if the system boots, then the user can actually learn that the disk space is too small and can install again 17:25:00 if the system doesn't boot... 17:25:33 * nirik thinks this is a perfectly fine thing to look at for f22. ;) but is -1 to blocking f21 on it. 17:25:55 I think you're confusing the bug report with "can't please everyone" approach, which is not what this is about 17:26:35 make it work badly, but make it work 17:26:38 that's what this is about 17:26:58 this just seems like a very corner case to be messing with right now. 17:26:58 proposed #agreed - 1165781 - RejectedBlocker - The installer currently does the best it can to handle this without hardcoded values. As it's more of an edge-case, it's not considered blocking for release. 17:26:59 sure, can be a target for f22 17:27:09 probably was broken in the past for a long time 17:27:26 roshi: +1 17:27:35 who's secretarializing? 17:27:42 ack 17:27:49 not sure about the wording, i think anaconda could *possibly* do more here but it's not a blocker, but eh 17:27:58 ack 17:28:05 i can secretarialize if no-one else is 17:28:22 I wasn't sure the best way to word it, that was one of several iterations 17:28:59 #agreed - 1165781 - RejectedBlocker - The installer currently does the best it can to handle this without hardcoded values. As it's more of an edge-case, it's not considered blocking for release. 17:29:07 #topic (1166730) the existence of an unaligned partition precludes anaconda installation without any obvious error 17:29:10 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166730 17:29:13 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:30:32 do we know any cases of things that make unaligned partitions like this? 17:30:46 I hoped dlehman would be able to look at it 17:30:50 windows has done it to me before (in the past) 17:30:54 * jreznik_2nd is watching video 17:30:57 well we clearly know there's at least *one* 17:31:02 nirik: I created it just to verify a different bug 17:31:06 parted :P 17:31:20 well, I meant something like another os... yeah. 17:31:37 so windows users could hit this in theory... 17:31:49 I guess so, especially when using some third-party tools 17:32:26 ERR anaconda: vda may not have enough space for grub2 to embed core.img when using the ext4 file system on partition 17:32:34 I can begin installation > I can't begin installation 17:32:36 so this unaligned was /dev/vda1 ? 17:32:41 why oh why I can't edit bugzilla comments 17:32:41 512B is likely the problem here. You're not going to have room for grub. 17:32:49 * nirik nods. 17:33:18 I'd be more worried if it was starting > 1M and still failing. 17:33:23 bcl: that didn't occur to me. I can try again with the partition moved 17:33:27 granted, a better error would be nice. 17:33:35 'any error' :-) 17:33:44 explanation 17:33:59 actually, I thought we did have one about starting too low. 17:35:55 that's what that error message says, to me. maybe it's a bit jargony, but "not enough space for grub2 to embed core.img'... 17:36:16 ouch, my mistake then. so the problem is a bit different 17:36:52 oh, right, nirik found it. 17:37:52 * kparal quickly trying again 17:37:52 kparal: so did the error show up in the storage spoke error bar? 17:37:54 well, that was in the anaconda.log... 17:38:04 * nirik didn't look at the video 17:38:18 If not, then that's the only problem, but shouldn't be a blocker. 17:38:52 ok, if I create the partition with 1 MB space from the disk start, anaconda works as expected 17:39:05 bcl: yeah, no error on the spoke. 17:39:11 darn. 17:39:18 (from the video) 17:39:35 yeah, it seems like the error doesn't show up in the GUI 17:39:50 My FF doesn't like the video. offers to open with rythembox 17:39:55 so, -1 blocker, +1 FE if the error is easy to fix? 17:40:01 still, i'm -1 if the problem is the partition alignment, that's no new error case 17:40:06 totem played it fine here. 17:40:25 i could +1 FE an improvement to displaying partitioning errors if it's safe and lands soon 17:40:37 at this point I'd leave it alone. 17:40:59 yeah 17:41:00 alright. 17:41:04 -1/+1 17:41:29 ok, so -1/+1 17:41:35 dunno how common it would be, but might warrent a common bugs (if you try and install and get an error, but it doesn't show what error, check anaconda.log?) 17:42:14 * kparal needs to go away for a bit 17:43:36 nirik: seems reasonable in any case. always read the logs :) 17:43:36 proposed #agreed - 1166730 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug isn't severe enough to block on, but we would consider a fix to displaying errors better if it's simple and lands soon. 17:43:50 bcl: true enough. 17:43:50 ack 17:43:53 ack 17:43:54 ack 17:43:56 ack 17:44:10 #agreed - 1166730 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug isn't severe enough to block on, but we would consider a fix to displaying errors better if it's simple and lands soon. 17:44:18 #topic (1167014) Manual partitioning using single partition: unable to escape from Partitioning page except with workaround 17:44:21 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167014 17:44:23 so everyone's OK with me editing the bug quite a lot to explain what the real issue is? 17:44:23 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:44:30 * roshi is 17:46:25 adamw: editing? you mean adding ? ;) 17:47:44 * nirik waits for adamw's comment, gets more coffee. 17:48:59 nirik: well, changing the topic too 17:49:01 i did it now 17:49:13 (1166730) 17:49:40 * bcl checks to see if he can reproduce. 17:49:43 oh, that one, I thought you meant this one... ( 1167014 ) 17:49:47 ah, sorry 17:51:27 hi dlehman 17:51:33 hi 17:51:34 more reproducers here would be good... looks like kparal couldn't reproduce it. 17:51:50 yeah 17:51:58 doesn't look like it's easy to hit 17:52:47 sounds like kparal is having trouble reproducing, yeah 17:52:49 yeah, works for me. can't make it not escape, even when there's a real error. 17:53:09 even if there's a real bug here i think i'd be OK documenting the workaround 17:53:51 the logs seem like they are from a successfull install... 17:54:16 proposed #agreed - 1167014 - RejectedBlocker - This bug isn't easy to reproduce but has an easy workaround when you do run into it. Document on Common Bugs. 17:54:39 ack 17:54:56 ack 17:55:13 do we want to consider FE? 17:55:20 well, maybe only with a clear reproducer 17:55:26 yeah. ack. 17:55:38 I wouldn't want to do an FE for this until more people hit it 17:55:38 i'll add a note that it's OK to repropose for FE if a clear reproducer can be found 17:55:45 sounds good 17:55:53 #agreed - 1167014 - RejectedBlocker - This bug isn't easy to reproduce but has an easy workaround when you do run into it. Document on Common Bugs. 17:56:05 #topic (1165856) CVE-2014-7850 freeipa: XSS flaw can be used to escalate privileges [fedora-all] 17:56:08 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165856 17:56:11 #info Proposed Blocker, freeipa, ON_QA 17:57:41 this is a "moderate" level cve... 17:58:08 the criterion states "The release must contain no known security bugs of 'important' or higher impact according to the Red Hat severity classification scale which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by a package update (e.g. issues during installation). " 17:58:10 did we have a security critera? anyhow, I am +1 to pulling it in, either as a blocker or fe 17:58:11 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria#Security_bugs 17:58:14 so, going by the book, -1/+1 17:58:26 sure. -1/+1 17:58:41 -1/+1 17:59:03 * jreznik_2nd is blind but does not see clasification in the bug 17:59:28 it's in the CVE bug that one is linked to 17:59:46 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165280 17:59:54 yea, it's there moderate - -1/+1 18:00:53 proposed #agreed - 1165856 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - The CVE isn't classified high enough to block release, but we would accept a fix before release. 18:00:58 ack 18:01:01 ack 18:02:01 ack 18:02:08 #agreed - 1165856 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - The CVE isn't classified high enough to block release, but we would accept a fix before release. 18:02:23 #topic (1163698) Webcam not working in kamoso 18:02:24 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163698 18:02:24 #info Proposed Blocker, kamoso, VERIFIED 18:03:36 kamoso isn't installed in default is it? 18:03:48 I think it is 18:04:00 rdieter told me so 18:04:29 ah, it is default in KDE, I see. Ok. Then if it is installed in default, then this should be blocker 18:04:57 yep, +1 blocker 18:04:57 i can +1 as per #c20, but in my black little excuse for a heart i suspect that if we didn't have a fix for this and this was go/no-go, we'd find a way to fudge it... 18:04:58 we have a fix in hand it seems too... 18:05:03 +1 blocker 18:05:05 adamw: me too. 18:05:20 +1 18:05:29 +1 if it's default 18:05:51 +1 18:05:58 * kparal is back 18:06:23 proposed #agreed - 1163698 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the criterion: All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test. 18:06:30 ack 18:06:47 ack 18:07:05 ack 18:07:06 #agreed - 1163698 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the criterion: All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test. 18:07:31 #topic (1164609) CVE-2014-8600 kwebkitpart, kde-runtime: Insufficient Input Validation By IO Slaves and Webkit Part [fedora-all] 18:07:34 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164609 18:07:37 #info Proposed Blocker, kde-runtime, ON_QA 18:08:11 low impact, -1/+1 18:08:25 yeah 18:08:54 -1/+1 18:09:03 -1/+1 18:09:54 proposed #agreed - 1164609 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This CVE isn't a high enough classification to block release. However, we would accept a fix before release. 18:09:58 ack 18:10:00 ack 18:10:03 ack 18:10:10 #agreed - 1164609 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This CVE isn't a high enough classification to block release. However, we would accept a fix before release. 18:10:17 #topic (1164607) CVE-2014-8600 kwebkitpart: kwebkitpart, kde-runtime: Insufficient Input Validation By IO Slaves and Webkit Part [fedora-all] 18:10:20 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164607 18:10:23 #info Proposed Blocker, kwebkitpart, MODIFIED 18:10:43 thats the same one? 18:10:52 sure looks like it 18:10:59 yeah, it does 18:11:04 got proposed twice... the cve bug and the child bug 18:11:05 two packages, but that doesn't need two bugs, you wouldn't think... 18:11:12 ah, darn security procedures 18:11:14 same CVE too 18:11:46 proposed #agreed - 1164607 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This CVE isn't a high enough classification to block release. However, we would accept a fix before release. 18:11:50 ack 18:11:55 ack 18:12:06 -1 18:12:07 nack 18:12:08 whatever 18:12:15 this doesn't seem like even cve bug and child bug 18:12:24 they just seem like dupes 18:12:43 so i'd say we should close one 18:12:44 yeah, whatever to undupe them and have only one of them 18:12:47 then we can just unpropose it and link it to the one we just voted on 18:12:48 * nirik nods 18:13:36 one is in kde-runtime, one in kdewebkitpart 18:14:02 (to grab both packages) 18:14:03 yeah 18:14:06 i was right the first time 18:14:21 i guess i'd expect one bug report and one update with both packages, but hey. +1 18:15:17 ok, then ack this one too and move on. ;) 18:16:25 we don't need an agreed for this 18:16:31 we're done with proposed blockers 18:16:36 now to FEs 18:16:57 * jreznik_2nd has to move home now as he has another meeting 9 pm, will be available on passport 18:17:00 any other blockers that people have? 18:17:11 thanks jreznik_2nd 18:17:55 lets hit the fe's. ;) 18:17:58 don't think so 18:18:12 cool, onto FEs 18:18:18 #topic (1167016) ark-4.14.3-1 : crash on exit 18:18:18 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167016 18:18:18 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, ark, MODIFIED 18:19:46 sure. +1 FE. 18:20:22 yup 18:20:34 yeah 18:21:16 proposed #agreed - 1167016 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix will be considered for this despite freeze. 18:21:49 ack 18:22:01 ack 18:22:09 #agreed - 1167016 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix will be considered for this despite freeze. 18:22:16 #topic (1166189) gearbox requires ice 18:22:17 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166189 18:22:17 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gearbox, NEW 18:22:58 +1 fe 18:22:59 +1 18:23:00 +1 FE 18:23:05 already has votes in bug 18:23:17 * pschindl has to leave. Good night. 18:23:19 * nirik is double voting. ;) 18:23:28 proposed #agreed - 1166189 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix will be considered for this despite freeze. 18:23:33 ack 18:23:34 ack 18:23:36 night pschindl 18:23:39 thanks for coming 18:23:47 I saw what you did there nirik - sneaky 18:24:19 ack 18:24:21 #agreed - 1166189 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix will be considered for this despite freeze. 18:24:23 ack 18:25:01 #topic (1163698) Webcam not working in kamoso 18:25:02 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163698 18:25:02 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kamoso, VERIFIED 18:25:14 we can skip this one, already accepted it as a blocker 18:25:17 yup 18:25:41 and two more are those CVE dupes 18:25:44 I'll skip those 18:25:45 #topic (1158848) Unable to write to /dev/console and /dev/ttyS0 on s390x 18:25:48 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158848 18:25:51 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kernel, MODIFIED 18:26:54 this is secondary arch stuff, right 18:27:04 yep 18:27:07 +1 FE 18:27:15 +1 18:27:27 having no console 18:27:32 not fun 18:27:35 yeah, iirc we allow secondary arch showstoppers to be FE so they're not stuck while we're in freeze for primary 18:27:36 +1 18:28:06 proposed #agreed - 1158848 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix would be considered before release. 18:29:02 ack 18:29:29 ack 18:29:40 #agreed - 1158848 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix would be considered before release. 18:29:52 #topic (1166193) Octomap requires ice 18:29:52 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166193 18:29:52 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, octomap, NEW 18:29:59 * oddshocks pops in 18:30:32 +1 FE 18:30:43 same as the last one? 18:30:57 yeah, same as last one - different package though 18:31:03 +1 18:31:03 "I'd like to get it into the repositories before final so that the srpm in the "fedora" is buildable" 18:31:04 ehhh 18:31:08 well, I guess. 18:31:15 +1, sure, whatever, i'm feeling charitable 18:31:34 hum 18:31:41 I don't actually see it as a broken dep... 18:31:49 it could be fixed with updates anyways, right? 18:31:55 * roshi isn't familiar with octomap 18:32:50 yeah, looks like the one in base repo is installable fine. 18:32:56 * nirik digs some more 18:33:33 it's a broken *build* dep. aiui. 18:33:48 see the bit i quoted. 18:34:05 ah... I see. yeah. 18:34:06 yeah 18:34:12 I dunno that this needs an FE 18:34:36 well, the one in the base repo will not be buildable... 18:34:43 but not sure how many people would care. 18:35:00 * nirik is fine with +1 since it's a corner package... 18:35:56 yeah, it's not going to affect much aiui 18:36:00 yeah, it's kinda 'on the one hand who cares, on the other hand it can't break anything important' thing 18:36:09 yup 18:37:09 /me reappears 18:37:35 * kparal has some new info about 1158533 18:37:38 eh, let's just pick something and go with it 18:38:02 +1 18:38:27 proposed #agreed - 1166193 - AcceptedFreezeException - We'll consider a fix for this before release. 18:38:32 ack 18:38:40 then we can get to kparal's info 18:39:05 ack 18:39:18 #agreed - 1166193 - AcceptedFreezeException - We'll consider a fix for this before release. 18:39:22 ack 18:39:31 that's it for FEs 18:39:36 whatcha got kparal ? 18:39:50 last two comments at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158533 18:40:05 #topic (1158533) selecting one disk from VG spanning over multiple disks causes troubles 18:40:08 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158533 18:40:43 if that helps, we can decide on it right away. or we can do some more testing. but atm I'm out of ideas what to test more 18:40:55 seems like it's not reproducible at all 18:41:01 for me 18:42:15 try it with only one disk *connected* instead of all connected but only one selected? 18:42:36 ah 18:42:56 roshi: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167047 just appeared as a proposed FE 18:43:06 it will take a minute 18:44:05 +1 on that FE 18:44:06 guided part worked 18:44:34 +1 on that FE as well. 18:44:36 and I can't easily retest other avenues, since I deleted my snapshot 18:44:46 so, tomorrow if needed 18:45:01 i think it'd be worth giving it a few more tries tomorrow 18:45:08 we aren't in any hurry to decide, we have wednesday's meeting 18:45:34 alright 18:45:39 proposed #agreed - 1167047 - AcceptedFreezeException - We would consider a fix for this before release. 18:45:50 yeah, I can test it here as well and see if I can reproduce it 18:45:54 roshi: might be a good idea to change #topic? 18:46:12 yeah, writing it up now 18:46:28 #topic (1167047) Kickstart line selinux --disabled has no effect 18:46:28 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167047 18:46:28 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST 18:46:32 * kparal needs to go, see you 18:46:37 have a good night 18:46:37