16:00:14 <pschindl> #startmeeting F25-blocker-review
16:00:14 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 20 16:00:14 2016 UTC.  The chair is pschindl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:14 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:14 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f25-blocker-review'
16:00:16 <pschindl> #meetingname F25-blocker-review
16:00:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f25-blocker-review'
16:00:18 <pschindl> #topic Roll Call
16:00:41 <pschindl> So who is here for first f25 blocker bug meeting?
16:02:09 * kparal is here
16:02:14 * pwhalen is here
16:03:04 <kparal> pschindl: did you perhaps convince lbrabec or garretraziel to join us?
16:03:37 <pschindl> kparal: no, they have no time today, sadly
16:03:40 * pwhalen just added a new alpha blocker
16:03:42 <kparal> :/
16:08:03 * RaphGro waves a hand
16:09:15 <pschindl> #chair kparal pwhalen RaphGro
16:09:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: RaphGro kparal pschindl pwhalen
16:10:22 <kparal> coremodule: tflink: around for some blocker discussion?
16:10:45 * coremodule is here and around for discussion!
16:10:57 <kparal> great :)
16:11:09 <coremodule> Sorry 'bout that!
16:11:46 <pschindl> ok. Five people should be enough. Let's start.
16:12:19 <pschindl> #topic Introduction
16:12:21 <pschindl> Why are we here?
16:12:23 <pschindl> #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.
16:12:25 <pschindl> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:12:30 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:12:32 <pschindl> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:12:34 <pschindl> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:12:36 <pschindl> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:12:38 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_25_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:12:40 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_25_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:12:42 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_25_Final_Release_Criteria
16:12:49 <pschindl> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:12:51 <pschindl> #info 0 Accepted Blockers
16:12:53 <pschindl> #info 0 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:12:55 <pschindl> #info 0 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:20 <pschindl> There are 5+1 blockers 3+1 alpha, 1 beta and 1 final
16:13:56 <coremodule> pschindl, Do you need a secretary for the meeting?
16:14:17 <pschindl> coremodule: I do need one :) Are you volunteering?
16:14:30 <coremodule> Sure! I'll do it!
16:15:11 <RaphGro> .bug 1358003
16:15:11 <zodbot> RaphGro: Bug 1358003 – 'appstream-util validate-relax' crashes with segmentation fault - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1358003
16:15:16 <RaphGro> are you aware of this? ^
16:15:45 <kparal> RaphGro: that's not proposed as a blocker. do you believe it should be?
16:15:54 <RaphGro> no idea ATM.
16:15:59 <pschindl> #info coremodule will do all the secretary stuff
16:16:02 <RaphGro> may depend how fast we find a possible fix.
16:16:03 <pschindl> coremodule: thank you.
16:16:20 <coremodule> pschindl, No problem.
16:16:39 <pschindl> So let's start with proposed alpha blockers
16:16:43 <kparal> RaphGro: ok, currently it seems it's not blocker worthy, unless there's a clear demonstration how it violates our criteria
16:16:49 <pschindl> #topic (1342732) SELinux is preventing accounts-daemon from 'write' accesses on the directory root.
16:16:51 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342732
16:16:53 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, accountsservice, ASSIGNED
16:17:00 <RaphGro> kparal, +1
16:18:20 <kparal> it seems the original bug is resolved
16:19:24 <kparal> however, last known good workstation live is  Fedora-Rawhide-20160329.n.0 , according to openqa
16:19:34 <kparal> so either this or something else is breaking the desktop
16:19:58 <kparal> however, it does reach graphics
16:20:02 <coremodule> Whoa, that's old...
16:20:30 <kparal> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/25538
16:20:33 <kparal> this is latest test
16:20:54 <kparal> so I'd say this is resolved
16:21:40 <kparal> I'd remove the blocker nomination and ask people (Adam) to add it back if he sees it again
16:21:55 <kparal> stating that the original bug against which this was nominated seems resolved
16:22:06 <pwhalen> sounds reasonable
16:22:18 * kparal downloading rawhide workstation live, just to be sure
16:22:34 <RaphGro> agreed, not clear if it's reproducible.
16:23:29 <pwhalen> kparal, id also be interested if netinstalls work for you (or anyone else). openqa is reporting them working, but not working here (the latest bz i added as a blocker)
16:24:29 <kparal> pwhalen: openqa currently reports netinst as failing: https://www.happyassassin.net/nightlies.html
16:24:53 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1342732  - Remove the blocker nomination - original bug seems to be already fixed. There is no need to block on this now. If the problem appears again, please repropose.
16:25:22 <coremodule> ack, looks good to me
16:25:43 <RaphGro> ack
16:26:17 <kparal> ack
16:26:17 <pwhalen> ack
16:26:18 <pschindl> #agreed 1342732  - Remove the blocker nomination - original bug seems to be already fixed. There is no need to block on this now. If the problem appears again, please repropose.
16:26:20 <pschindl> #topic (1352680) efibootmgr calls in anaconda crashing since efivar-0.24-1.fc25 landed
16:26:20 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352680
16:26:21 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, efibootmgr, NEW
16:26:56 <pschindl> +1 seems like clear blocker to me.
16:27:20 <RaphGro> +1
16:27:44 <coremodule> +1
16:27:44 <kparal> it seems it's still crashing in openqa, even today
16:27:45 <kparal> +1
16:27:46 <pwhalen> +1
16:28:20 <kparal> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/25721#step/_do_install_and_reboot/33
16:28:42 <pwhalen> yea. happens in aarch64 also
16:28:55 <pwhalen> the install boots, but you get that error
16:32:38 <pwhalen> er, next?
16:32:52 <pschindl> I'm looking for criterion
16:32:58 <kparal> pschindl: it's in the bug
16:33:24 <kparal> "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces."
16:33:39 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1352680  - AcceptedBlocker - Failing efibootmgr clearly violates the alpha criterion: "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces."
16:33:39 <kparal> on UEFI, which is a "supported firmware type"
16:33:51 <kparal> ack
16:33:56 <pwhalen> ack
16:33:57 <RaphGro> sck
16:34:00 <RaphGro> ack
16:34:10 <pschindl> I couldn't find it in criteria, but hopefully Adam knows where it is :)
16:34:13 <coremodule> ack
16:34:23 <pschindl> #agreed 1352680  - AcceptedBlocker - Failing efibootmgr clearly violates the alpha criterion: "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces."
16:34:37 <pschindl> #topic (1353054) FreeIPA server deployment fails due to pki-core dangling symlinks (one from non-installed 'scannotation' package, one formerly in resteasy-jaxrs-api but now lost)
16:34:39 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353054
16:34:41 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, pki-core, NEW
16:35:23 <kparal> +1 per criterion in comment 1
16:35:44 <pschindl> +1
16:35:49 <pwhalen> +1
16:36:32 <RaphGro> no idea here.
16:37:42 <coremodule> +1
16:38:05 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1353054 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the 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, started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." The domain controller role can't be deployed because of this bug.
16:38:22 <pwhalen> ack
16:38:42 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:38:53 <kparal> ack
16:39:00 <coremodule> ack
16:39:16 <pschindl> #agreed 1353054 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the 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, started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." The domain controller role can't be deployed because of this bug.
16:39:38 <pschindl> and the last proposed alpha blocker
16:39:40 <pschindl> #topic (1358416) "Error setting up software source" when attempting a Network installation
16:39:42 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358416
16:39:44 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:40:21 <pschindl> +1 I've seen this today too.
16:40:24 <coremodule> +1, just saw this trying to test the first blocker with todays rawhide image.
16:40:41 <pschindl> coremodule: exactly :)
16:41:07 <pwhalen> +1, seems to have started after the network changes in anaconda noted in the changelog
16:41:41 * kparal booting netinst
16:42:19 <pwhalen> but looking here, it appears to work - https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?distri=fedora&version=Rawhide&build=Fedora-Rawhide-20160719.n.0&groupid=1
16:42:20 <kparal> confirmed
16:42:46 <pwhalen> am i reading that wrong? https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/25631
16:42:47 <kparal> I do have an IP assigned
16:42:54 <kparal> but network is unreachable
16:42:56 <pwhalen> yes, ip is there, but route isnt
16:43:07 <pwhalen> nor is nameserver
16:43:14 <kparal> ah, the default route is not in "ip r"
16:43:40 <pwhalen> so, if you set route and nameserver, youre good to go
16:44:13 <kparal> pwhalen: yes, for some reason it works in openqa
16:44:21 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1358416 - AcceptedBlocker - Malfunctioning networking violates the alpha criterion: "When using a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to use either HTTP or FTP repositories (or both) as package sources. Release-blocking network install images must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source."
16:44:22 <kparal> but since I and pschindl reproduced it... +1
16:44:43 <pwhalen> thanks for checking
16:44:53 <kparal> ack
16:45:05 <RaphGro> ack
16:45:15 <pwhalen> ack
16:45:21 <coremodule> ack
16:45:23 <pschindl> #agreed 1358416 - AcceptedBlocker - Malfunctioning networking violates the alpha criterion: "When using a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to use either HTTP or FTP repositories (or both) as package sources. Release-blocking network install images must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source."
16:45:47 <pschindl> ok that's all from alpha, now there is one proposed Beta blocker:
16:45:56 <pschindl> #topic (1349721) Upgrade from Fedora 24 to Fedora Rawhide with dnf-plugin-system-upgrade fails, system stuck in boot loop until booted with enforcing=0
16:45:58 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349721
16:46:00 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW
16:47:23 <coremodule> +1
16:47:25 <RaphGro> isn't that the same as the initial one?
16:47:28 <pschindl> +1
16:47:29 <kparal> +1
16:47:36 <RaphGro> +1
16:47:45 <pwhalen> +1
16:47:57 <pschindl> RaphGro: it's just another selinux bug
16:47:57 <kparal> seems very different to me
16:48:13 <RaphGro> ok
16:49:03 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1349721 - AcceptedBlocker - Failing upgrade violates the beta criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed."
16:49:36 <kparal> ack
16:49:44 <pwhalen> ack
16:50:07 <coremodule> ack
16:50:12 <pschindl> #agreed 1349721 - AcceptedBlocker - Failing upgrade violates the beta criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed."
16:50:30 <pschindl> And the last bug for today is from final:
16:50:39 <pschindl> #topic (1347415) iSCSI install fails in current Rawhide with "The name org.storaged.Storaged was not provided by any .service files"
16:50:41 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347415
16:50:43 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, lorax, POST
16:51:01 <kparal> it's already POST, if we skip it, maybe it will be resolved the next time and we don't need to discuss it ;)
16:51:16 <kparal> but it seems straightforward enough, +1
16:51:29 <pschindl> +1
16:51:44 <coremodule> +1
16:51:48 <pwhalen> +1
16:52:31 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1347415 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the final criterion: "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices."
16:53:19 <coremodule> ack
16:53:50 <kparal> ack
16:54:14 <pwhalen> ack
16:54:17 <pschindl> #agreed 1347415 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the final criterion: "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices."
16:54:28 <pschindl> #topic Open floor
16:54:29 <pschindl> Do you have something to prolong this very short meeting? :)
16:54:46 <pwhalen> heh, nothing here
16:54:51 <RaphGro> .bug 1358003
16:54:51 <zodbot> RaphGro: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1358003
16:55:03 <RaphGro> i686 only, so not relevant for QA
16:55:11 <coremodule> This was good, very efficient. I guess the quality of info on the bugs made it such.
16:55:22 <RaphGro> +1
16:55:37 <kparal> nice and fast meeting :)
16:57:01 <kparal> blow the fuse, pschindl
16:57:36 <pschindl> kparal, coremodule, pwhalen, RaphGro: thanks for your attendance
16:57:47 <pschindl> #endmeeting