18:02:01 #startmeeting F27 Final and Server Beta Go/No-Go meeting 18:02:01 Meeting started Thu Nov 9 18:02:01 2017 UTC. The chair is jkurik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:01 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:02:01 The meeting name has been set to 'f27_final_and_server_beta_go/no-go_meeting' 18:02:08 #meetingname F27-final-and-Server-Beta-Go-No-Go-meeting 18:02:08 The meeting name has been set to 'f27-final-and-server-beta-go-no-go-meeting' 18:02:13 jkurik: Yeah, just checked my calendar 18:02:14 #topic Roll Call 18:02:19 morning 18:02:22 .hello jkurik 18:02:23 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 18:02:24 .hello mohanboddu 18:02:26 .hello2 18:02:26 mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' 18:02:29 frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' 18:02:29 #chair nirik adamw sgallagh mboddu 18:02:29 Current chairs: adamw jkurik mboddu nirik sgallagh 18:02:30 .hello pfrields 18:02:32 .hello2 18:02:34 .hello2 18:02:36 stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' 18:02:39 lbrabec: lbrabec 'Lukas Brabec' 18:02:41 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 18:02:44 Hi everyone 18:02:45 and so it begins 18:02:49 sgallagh: lol 18:02:51 .hello2 18:02:51 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 18:03:35 do we have QA ? adamw, kparal ? 18:03:46 .hello adamwill 18:03:47 adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' 18:03:52 .hello kparal 18:03:54 \o/ 18:03:59 #topic Purpose of this meeting 18:04:02 kparal: kparal 'Kamil Páral' 18:04:05 #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F27 Final and F27 Modular Server Beta are ready for shipment, according to the release criteria. 18:04:10 #info This is determined in a few ways: 18:04:15 #info * Release candidate compose is available 18:04:19 #info * No remaining blocker bugs 18:04:26 #info * Test matrices are fully completed 18:04:32 #topic Current status of F27 Final release 18:04:35 .hello2 18:04:36 bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' 18:04:47 We have an RC compose available at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/27/Fedora-27-20171105.0/ 18:05:02 We also have test matrices available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_27_RC_1.6_Summary 18:05:13 There are some proposed blockers: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/27/final/buglist 18:05:23 May I have your confirmation of the above for the F27 Final release, please ? 18:05:42 sounds right. 18:05:47 #info RC compose is ready, Test matrices are available and there are some proposed blockers. 18:05:56 #link https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/27/Fedora-27-20171105.0/ - The RC compose 18:06:03 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_27_RC_1.6_Summary - Test matrices 18:06:10 #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/27/final/buglist - Proposed blockers 18:06:21 #topic Current status of F27 Modular Server Beta release 18:06:31 We have RC compose available at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/27/Fedora-Modular-27-20171108.2/ 18:06:40 We do not have Test Matrices as there is an agreement between the Server/Modular WG and Fedoar QA to use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria instead. 18:06:56 Am I correct ? 18:07:08 Yes 18:07:19 #info RC is ready as well as Beta release criteria which are used as the criteria for testing purposes. 18:07:20 Though "it's complicated" and I'll get to that in a bit 18:07:29 #link https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/27/Fedora-Modular-27-20171108.2/ - The RC compose 18:07:35 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria - F27 Modular Server Beta Release criteria 18:07:48 sgallagh: do you want to elaborate on it now ? 18:08:32 jkurik: The 1.5 compose hit a very odd bug that caused one of the modules (fonts) not to be included in the compose tree) 18:08:59 The installer works fine (and has the fonts, interestingly), but installation of FreeIPA doesn't work from that specific compose, due to missing fonts, 18:09:34 However, FreeIPA via rolekit always hits the repos, so this is addressable without respinning the RC 18:10:07 ok, do we have a bugzilla for it (to mark it as 0day) ? 18:10:15 There is currently a compose in-flight that restores the fonts to the compose tree. It hasn't finished yet, but should within the next 30 minutes, so I'd like us to defer decision until that happens 18:10:30 sgallagh: ah, ok 18:10:54 so we can move on with F27 Final release 18:11:05 adamw: May I ask you please to chair the Mini-blocker review ? 18:11:10 sure. 18:11:12 #topic Mini-Blocker Review 18:11:32 jkurik: 1508576 has sort of become this, but it's confusing 18:11:34 #info here are the proposed Final blockers 18:11:44 #topic (1469129) [abrt] gnome-shell: g_type_check_instance_cast(): gnome-shell killed by signal 11 18:11:44 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469129 18:11:45 #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW 18:11:46 sgallagh: thanks 18:11:54 so. another gnome-shell crash bug. 18:12:00 this one again has 20+ people CCed on it. 18:12:01 We should probably add that to the blocker proposals 18:12:15 and for some goddamn reason someone only decided to propose it as a blocker yesterday. 18:12:23 leaving us no time to really investigate or analyse it. 18:12:39 Hm. I haven't seen this problem. 18:12:53 me either. there is some suggestion in the bug that it's related to btrfs. 18:13:06 either three or four people mention btrfs, though one of them is leslie. 18:13:28 (not sure who superdanby is, whether he's the same as one of the commenters or not) 18:13:29 * kparal isn't convinced this is related to btrfs in any way 18:13:48 i wouldn't say i'm convinced either, but i guess it's *possible*. 18:14:46 so i'm worried about this one, but it being proposed as a blocker yesterday really puts us in an awkward spot. 18:15:01 😒 18:15:04 and we just don't have a great framework for assessing Shell crashers. 18:17:20 since none of us has seen this crash, I'd consider it being rather rare 18:17:44 * nirik is -1 blocker. Hopefully more info could be found and it could be fixed in an update... and yeah, not see it in general testing here at all... 18:17:46 Hmm... I am more inclined to the mattdm's opinion that there might be several small issues for this crashes which are just having the same symptomps 18:17:47 some people mentioned dnf update at the same time, and even more people lock screen deactivation 18:18:06 and at least one mentions an extension installation 18:18:13 the dupes here look more...dupey than the other one, to me. 18:18:26 kparal: the lock screen deactivation could easily be known issues with external monitor 18:19:09 they're all g_type_check_instance_cast() involved, right? 18:19:25 yeah, the backtraces all match at least that far. 18:19:34 interestingly I'm working on a coredumpctl article for Fedora Magazine :-) 18:19:41 and it's my understanding that once a shell crash backtrace gets into the javascript interpreter it's basically useless 18:19:52 :-( 18:19:52 you need a separate javascript-specific trace there 18:20:09 there's recently been a commit upstream that automatically does the appropriate javascript dump whenever shell crashes 18:20:16 but that's not in f27 unfortunately 18:20:23 :-( maybe we can get it backported 18:20:29 anyway, not relevant here 18:20:31 yeah, that was being kicked around 18:20:59 hard for me to +1 this when I'm not seeing it on any of my h/w 18:22:23 * mboddu agrees with stickster 18:22:48 I would personally be -1 to block as the issue does not seem to be somehow general. But my opinion is based mostly on feelings. 18:23:22 I am inclining more to -1; running X session instead of the Wayland one seems like an easy "workaround" 18:24:00 frantisekz: I disagree with that that's a fix 18:24:05 At least one of them happened on Xorg 18:24:25 s/fix/workaround/ 18:24:49 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499383 has XDG_SESSION_TYPE=x11 18:25:02 i worry a bit that this could come back to bite us, but it's hard to be +1 right now 18:25:03 yeah, I've meant that you wouldn't lose your apps and entire session on X if I am not mistaken 18:25:12 Right 18:25:15 right 18:25:18 it's an *effective* workaround 18:25:45 we can definitely put some generic wording into commonbugs about switching to X if you experience repeated shell crashes 18:25:59 i think we might actually even have some such text lying around in an older commonbugs page i could dust off... 18:26:03 *nod... 18:26:22 and we can fix this with an update when we have the fix 18:26:54 for non-live cases, yeah. 18:26:55 * mattdm has "get split session/compositor/etc onto roadmap" on the agenda for a meeting later today, not that that helps us hwre 18:27:10 so, i'm like a -0.5 18:27:17 * stickster asked in #fedora-workstation, fwiw, and mclasen also opines the bug is way too cluttered to judge it as one bug 18:27:23 I think there was a GSoC student working on that... but not sure how far they got 18:27:24 is anyone voting +1 here? or have any other objection to proposing RejectedBlocker? 18:27:39 mclasen that is my take too 18:28:03 adamw: I am -0.75 :-) 18:28:33 I'm also -1 18:28:41 -1 here 18:28:41 I'm -0.8119503 but only because it's a Thursday 18:28:47 ... 18:29:08 heh 18:29:11 I am also -1 18:29:15 -1 18:29:26 -1 18:29:35 anyone want to sum th 18:29:44 ose fractions? 18:29:56 .fire mattdm 18:29:56 adamw fires mattdm 18:29:57 * stickster withdraws to make the math easier ;-) 18:30:06 you do it "mathdm" 18:30:23 haha :) 18:30:45 And if I vote -0.3141592653 ? 18:30:47 it's -6.25 thus far if you don't count me 18:30:51 the vote is minus a bunch, plus zero 18:31:13 sorry, -7.25, I missed nirik earlier 18:31:29 * nirik waves 18:32:27 proposed #agreed 1469129 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this bug concerns us, but the fact that it was only proposed the day before the meeting puts us in an awkward spot. There really isn't sufficient information yet to clearly indicate this will affect a wide range of users, or even for us to usefully evaluate what circumstances trigger it or how long a fix may take. Given this, we don't feel we can block the release at this time 18:32:31 puiterwijk: that would be fine, but you're not allowed to vote irrationally so 𝛑/10 is forbidden 18:33:00 adamw: ack 18:33:02 ack 18:33:04 ack 18:33:06 ack 18:33:08 ack 18:33:16 ack 18:33:16 ack 18:33:17 #agreed 1469129 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this bug concerns us, but the fact that it was only proposed the day before the meeting puts us in an awkward spot. There really isn't sufficient information yet to clearly indicate this will affect a wide range of users, or even for us to usefully evaluate what circumstances trigger it or how long a fix may take. Given this, we don't feel we can block the release at this time 18:33:18 ack 18:33:41 #topic (1497897) VPN entry text missing in GNOME Shell menu when laptop is plugged in to mains power 18:33:41 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497897 18:33:41 #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW 18:33:41 we can propose it right away as a priority candidate 18:33:45 oh man, i didn't even see this one. 18:34:02 mattdm: to be honest, i'd rather have the 'split the shell and compositor' stuff as the prioritizedbug 18:34:11 mattdm: given that it seems like there's always going to be crasher bugs in shell... 18:34:29 adamw: good news then :) 18:35:45 there seem to be a number of comments in bz#1497897 pointing -1 for various reasons... primarily that it's not being seen often by any of the commenters 18:35:53 * nirik is -1 blocker on this one. It's ugly, but everything works and can hopefully be fixed in an update (lives shouldn't normally have vpns enabled) 18:36:11 stickster: I was just about to say I am hitting this all the time, and had been planning on filing when I found this bug :) 18:36:12 I haven't seen it myself but yay anecdata 18:36:15 https://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/gnome326/novpn.png 18:36:17 lol 18:36:31 huh, that is pretty weird 18:36:39 I am -1 for the same reason as nirik has described 18:36:48 if this happened consistently i'd be +1 blocker per the criterion i think, but since it's seemingly quite rare, -1 18:36:56 puiterwijk: are you on 3.26.1 or 3.26.2? 18:37:03 stickster: RC6, so 3.26.1 18:37:21 (since this blocker bug meeting is about RC6 as far as I'm aware) 18:37:21 gotcha. I'm trying the zero-day megaupdate recently. 18:37:25 I've never seen this either 18:37:30 I have 3.26.1 on my other machine though 18:37:31 I see this consistently 18:37:56 huh 18:37:56 Well, semi-consistently. It happens everytime I log in, and then after a while fixes itself. 18:37:58 * sumantro too never saw this 18:37:59 i wonder what the cause is 18:38:07 * adamw doesn't recall ever seeing it either 18:38:07 I'm -1 18:38:32 I'm -1 to blocking, but just wanted to chime in that I can reproduce it 18:38:35 -1 18:38:39 -1 18:38:43 -1 18:38:44 I'd be -1 to blocking but +1 for common-bugs'ing it 18:38:53 i suppose it *could* be to do with the 'power' entry, which is directly below it 18:39:04 happens when battery is <100% and system is plugged in? meh 18:39:05 adamw: we've seen it on a desktop 18:39:05 -1, if this is the worst thing that happens then I think we did pretty good :) 18:39:13 adamw: that seems like the only reasonable theory I can think of too 18:39:15 kparal: was it a desktop with a UPS? :) 18:39:21 nope 18:39:22 adamw: on my screenshot, the battery is fully charged 18:39:23 adamw: in puiterwijk's case, bluetooth is directly below 18:39:30 dustymabe: oh, i can give you a list of worse things if you like :P 18:39:31 But yeah, bluetooth is below 18:39:34 huh. 18:39:41 welp, anyway, that's pretty solid -1 vote. 18:39:47 adamw: /me likes to live in happy land 18:39:50 dustymabe: "is this the one thing you'd hold for" ? 18:40:09 dustymabe: me too, I call it the liquor cabinet 18:40:18 I'd like to make sure we get this at least triaged and to the attention of developers who can do something about it. 18:40:34 proposed #agreed 1497897 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - since this doesn't happen consistently (and doesn't seem to affect many people at all), and the entry still works, we don't think this is serious enough to constitute a violation of the criterion. We will document it in CommonBugs 18:40:38 stickster: are you speaking for Workstation in this meeting? 18:40:38 ack 18:40:39 mattdm: for sure it would make sense to reproduce after the GNOME 3.26.2 megaupdate 18:40:41 adamw: ack 18:40:42 ack 18:40:43 ack 18:40:44 ack 18:40:51 mattdm: I think I'm the only person here from there, so... sure! 18:41:03 stickster: can you carry this to whoever might be able to actually do something about it? 18:41:07 mattdm: yes 18:41:08 #agreed 1497897 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - since this doesn't happen consistently (and doesn't seem to affect many people at all), and the entry still works, we don't think this is serious enough to constitute a violation of the criterion. We will document it in CommonBugs 18:41:24 #topic (1510301) PulseAudio sometimes does not restart properly after logging out 18:41:24 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510301 18:41:25 #info Proposed Blocker, pulseaudio, NEW 18:41:37 #dontdothat 18:41:42 heh 18:41:50 yeah, i'm still -1 as voted in bug. 18:42:09 we can document 'wait 20 seconds to log back in'. 18:42:30 * nirik is -1 18:42:31 * sumantro is -1 on this too 18:42:34 -1 18:42:59 * mboddu is -1 18:43:00 -1 18:43:10 Mantra here: we recognize this as a real bug, but not all bugs are blockers, or we'll never ever ship 18:43:34 -1; we have a workaround - having a coffee between logout and login solves the issue :-) 18:43:46 -1 18:43:58 * stickster -1 but would be nice to see this not be annoying soon :-) 18:44:16 I believe it's a blocker but discovered so late it's fine to postpone it to the next release 18:44:27 I ran into it today myself but it was purely the specific issue of "log out and back in right away" 18:44:32 but seems I'm outvoted anyway 18:44:37 worth asking 18:44:48 is anyone just -1 because this is late, and would vote +1 to f28finalblocker? 18:44:52 kparal: not that we don't 💙 you 18:45:02 i think i'm still -1 to f28final, it just doesn't quite reach the criteria for me. 18:45:07 I would be -1 to f28final as well 18:45:16 I'm firmly -1 18:45:21 adamw: no, I'm voting for "not blocker" 18:45:25 I would be -1 even for F28 18:45:25 roger. 18:45:26 stickster: why is that heart cold blue on my screen? 18:45:33 kparal: it's Fedora blue! 18:45:38 that was on purpose ;-) 18:45:54 I am also not sure I'd accept this as a prioritized bug. What was that dustymabe said about "if this is the worst thing..."? 18:46:05 lolyup 18:46:07 kparal: perhaps you prefer 💖 ? 18:46:08 💔 18:46:09 -1 on f28 too 18:46:10 well, then I'm still outvoted :) 18:46:28 proposed #agreed 1510301 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agreed that this is an annoyance, but clearly doesn't constitute a criteria violation, and it's reasonable to just document 'wait 20 seconds to log back in again (or change the config setting)' 18:46:30 I guess I need to install that emoji keymap 18:46:35 feel like outsider without it 18:46:40 * stickster using GNOME Characters 18:46:47 adamw: ack 18:46:50 .fire everyone who uses emojis 18:46:50 adamw fires everyone who uses emojis 18:46:53 lol 18:46:58 ack 18:46:59 ack 18:47:01 ack 18:47:02 ack 18:47:08 Heh 18:47:09 ack 18:47:10 ack 18:47:34 #agreed 1510301 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agreed that this is an annoyance, but clearly doesn't constitute a criteria violation, and it's reasonable to just document 'wait 20 seconds to log back in again (or change the config setting)' 18:48:23 that's all the proposed blockers for Final 18:48:27 do we do Server Beta now? 18:48:55 sgallagh: can we continue with F27 Modular Server Beta - blocker review ? ^^^ 18:48:56 * nirik had a issue to bring up. I don't think it's a blocker, but it might cause some pain/we should decide what to do about it. 18:48:58 i think we say "ship it" to this one first 18:49:03 please :) 18:49:04 (can wait until after server) 18:49:26 well, now we have three choices! 18:49:43 I had an issue I just filed as well (forgot to do so in the last few hours), but not sure whether multi-monitor is important on live images 18:49:46 or we could all go get beer? 18:49:56 man, 5 choices. 18:50:05 nirik: +∞ 18:50:05 ok, so lets finish the F27 Final and then we can return back to the Modular Server 18:50:11 eyes please 18:50:15 lol "yes" 18:50:17 +1 18:50:19 eyes too I guess 18:50:42 ok, fine 18:50:48 so, we should consider nirik and puiterwijk's issues 18:50:54 (and then reject them and get a drink) 18:51:03 :) ok, shall I go first? 18:51:11 nirik: yes please :-) 18:51:14 The satyr package had a f27 buildroot override, so it was used until it expired yesterday. (ie, RC1.6 used it). Today, f27 nightly compose fails because the override expired. The old satyr causes anaconda-core to have broken deps. 18:51:14 Problem: package anaconda-core-27.20.4-4.fc27.x86_64 requires libreport-anaconda >= 2.0.21-1, but none of the providers can be installed 18:51:14 - package lorax-lmc-novirt-27.11-1.fc27.x86_64 requires anaconda-core, but none of the providers can be installed 18:51:14 - package libreport-anaconda-2.9.3-1.fc27.x86_64 requires libreport = 2.9.3-1.fc27, but none of the providers can be installed 18:51:29 I don't understand this. 18:51:33 what do you mean when you say "used"? 18:51:41 buildroot overrides don't go into composes. 18:51:43 so, the old saytr is in the rc1.6 repos. but the newer one is likely on livemedia 18:52:06 wait, buildroot override packages get pulled into live composes? 18:52:12 that's...that's a problem. 18:52:15 someone have a f27 rc6 live up? can you rpm -q satyr ? 18:52:23 .fire the entire buildsyste 18:52:23 adamw fires the entire buildsyste 18:52:26 m 18:52:32 * kparal boots 18:52:33 well, I am not sure of the scope here either. 18:52:51 but regardless, if anaconda has dep problems with the old package, how did the compose work and produce installer images that boot? 18:52:55 nirik: satyr-0.23-6.fc27.x86_64 18:53:02 (but that's post-install) 18:53:14 Sorry, that's useless obviously 18:53:23 satyr-0.23-6.fc27.x86_64 from Live as well 18:53:30 huh, interesting. 18:54:02 satyr-0.23-6.fc27.x86_64 on live 18:54:10 what version is anaconda? 18:54:12 ok, thats the old one 18:54:16 anaconda-core 18:54:35 anaconda-27.20.4-4.fc27.x86_64 18:54:38 okay. 18:54:42 nirik: oh, could these be BuildRequires? 18:54:57 wait, no, that doesn't make sense. 18:54:58 no, thats from a kde live compose failure 18:55:00 they're binary packages. 18:55:08 adamw, anaconda-27.20.4-4.fc27.x86_64 18:55:34 nirik: what caused you to decide the dep issue traces back to satyr? 18:55:41 * nirik appologizes that this isn't fully debugged. just saw it this morning 18:55:50 nirik: do note that we had a stable push for anaconda last night 18:56:10 So I'm going to guess it might be that new stable push request that dragged in the anaconda that broke stuff 18:56:30 - nothing provides satyr >= 0.24 needed by libreport-2.9.3-1.fc27.x86_64 18:56:52 libreport-2.9.2-1.fc27.x86_64 on Live 18:56:56 which is older 18:56:56 oh 18:56:57 ah ha. 18:56:59 So, yeah, anaconda-27.20.4-4.fc27 was pulled in last night's stable request by adamw 18:57:01 that libreport itself has a buildroot override 18:57:11 it's not tagged f27 18:57:19 but is tagged f27-override 18:57:23 so we could kill that libreport override and be ok? 18:57:33 yeah. either kill that, or resurrect the satyr override. 18:57:37 do I understand it correctly that it does not affect the RC we have, but might affect further RCs if we are No-Go ? 18:57:49 i think it doesn't affect the RC and also wouldn't affect future RCs 18:57:50 jkurik: yeah, seems so 18:57:52 but it *does* affect nightlies 18:57:54 but...imbw 18:57:57 if so, then we need to be GO 18:58:00 :) 18:58:05 anyway, it clearly doesn't affect the current RC. 18:58:08 ok, so this is a non issue, move along. 18:58:08 so, i think we're okay. 18:58:12 \o/ 18:58:20 thanks everyone. :) 18:58:23 * dustymabe saw mattdm sweating 18:58:27 those are good words for an FPL to hear 18:58:31 not the sweating. the other stuff. 18:58:39 (though i would like to look into this issue of whether things with buildroot overrides get pulled into RC live composes, because if so, we could have a source/binary mismatch problem and hence technically licensing violations...) 18:58:42 puiterwijk: now your issue please 18:59:04 adamw: great, now mattdm can sweat again 18:59:10 i'm helping! 18:59:17 PRETTY SURE YOU ARE 18:59:22 So, I found this morning that the display ordering widget in gnome 3.26 just doesn't work, making it basically impossible to order multiple displays correctly. 18:59:33 * stickster has a call in 1 minute but will try to stay tuned 18:59:33 And I'm not sure whether we consider multi-display workflows for live images 18:59:39 adamw: maybe add a #topic 18:59:42 i mean, depends what you mean by 'consider'. 18:59:56 that sounds odd, though, i'm sure i used it earlier this cycle. 18:59:58 kparal: oh right 19:00:04 #topic miscellaneous F27 Final issues 19:00:05 Well, if it would be important enough to be possible seen as a blocker basically. 19:00:08 mattdm: don't sweat the petty stuff, and don't pet the sweaty stuff 19:00:14 puiterwijk: bz? 19:00:17 I totally forgot to file this earlier today, sorry for that. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1511638 19:00:35 puiterwijk: did you have 3 displays? 19:00:45 it's broken for 3 displays, even if 1 is disabled 19:00:46 kparal: I have two external ones, and a closed laptop lid 19:00:46 iirc 19:00:50 that's it 19:00:58 the same problem here 19:01:00 okay. i just tried it with two displays and it worked. 19:01:00 (the laptop lid is not shown in the widget ) 19:01:07 I know 19:01:22 adamw: okay, then it's probably just weird stuff with my system. It's just repeatable, and happens every time. But okay :) 19:01:26 it can be made work, if you know how to wiggle those boxes. it's tricky :) 19:01:35 sounds like kparal has a handle on it 19:01:44 kparal: is there a bz? 19:01:47 kparal: yeah, it's just really annoying and doesn't "feel" like it works 19:01:51 handles are probably useful for wiggling boxes 19:02:13 man, this crazy precise technical language we use must be so baffling to outsiders 19:02:31 adamw: I don't recall. either I forgot to report it, or found an upstream bug but can't find it now 19:02:34 adamw: you mean it isn't baffling to insiders? 19:02:37 =) 19:02:47 * puiterwijk has no idea what he's talking about here 19:02:59 i was just laughing at the box wiggling 19:03:12 like, what level of box wiggling do we consider unacceptable in a Quality Fedora Release 19:03:21 do we consider size of box, or amplitude of wiggle, or frequency... 19:03:24 :D 19:03:31 :-) 19:03:51 okay, so yeah, this doesn't feel blockery to me 19:03:54