#fedora-blocker-review: F29-blocker-review

Meeting started by adamw at 16:00:39 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. Roll Call (adamw, 16:00:39)
  2. Introduction (adamw, 16:05:58)
    1. 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. (adamw, 16:05:58)
    2. We'll be following the process outlined at: (adamw, 16:05:58)
    3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (adamw, 16:05:58)
    4. The bugs up for review today are available at: (adamw, 16:05:59)
    5. http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (adamw, 16:06:01)
    6. The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (adamw, 16:06:03)
    7. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria (adamw, 16:06:07)
    8. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Beta_Release_Criteria (adamw, 16:06:09)
    9. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Final_Release_Criteria (adamw, 16:06:11)
    10. 9 Proposed Blockers (adamw, 16:06:17)
    11. 3 Accepted Blockers (adamw, 16:06:17)
    12. 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (adamw, 16:06:23)
    13. 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions (adamw, 16:06:23)
    14. coremodule will secretarialize (adamw, 16:08:50)

  3. (1615586) segfault in ns-slapd during FreeIPA server deployment (or post-deployment operation) on Rawhide (adamw, 16:09:12)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615586 (adamw, 16:09:13)
    2. Proposed Blocker, 389-ds-base, ON_QA (adamw, 16:09:13)
    3. AGREED: 1615586 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "It must be possible to configure a Fedora Server system installed according to the above criteria as a FreeIPA domain controller, using the official deployment tools provided in the distribution FreeIPA packages. Once deployed, the system must handle multiple client enrolments and unenrolments, and client authentication via Kerberos..." (adamw, 16:14:27)

  4. (1596540) RuntimeError: C++ std::exception: Exec failed: no such table: main.trans_cmdline (adamw, 16:14:46)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596540 (adamw, 16:14:47)
    2. Proposed Blocker, dnf, NEW (adamw, 16:14:47)
    3. AGREED: 1596540 - punt - we are worried about this and similar bugs that seem to affect some but not other users on upgrade to DNF 3, but do not have sufficient information yet to make a good decision on whether they should be blockers. we will directly request evaluation of this by dnf team and discuss it again after that (adamw, 16:26:31)

  5. (1598336) dnf no longer understands its repository configuration (adamw, 16:26:43)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598336 (adamw, 16:26:43)
    2. Proposed Blocker, dnf, NEW (adamw, 16:26:43)
    3. AGREED: 1598336 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we agreed that this is a conditional violation of "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default console tool for the relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager)...", affecting Swedish installs (and possibly others) and that using LC_ALL is an acceptable workaround for Beta but not for Final (adamw, 16:36:02)

  6. (1616118) DNF update fails with "cannot install the best update candidate for package" (adamw, 16:36:35)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616118 (adamw, 16:36:36)
    2. Proposed Blocker, dnf, NEW (adamw, 16:36:36)
    3. AGREED: 1616118 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this bug seems mostly cosmetic, it doesn't actually cause any packages to be wrongly updated (or not updated), but it's likely to affect many users and looks bad. We agreed it is a Final blocker as a conditional violation of "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default console tool for the relevant software type" (adamw, 16:47:38)

  7. (1616167) dnf doesn't record modular metadata in a local database (adamw, 16:47:48)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616167 (adamw, 16:47:48)
    2. Proposed Blocker, dnf, NEW (adamw, 16:47:48)
    3. AGREED: 1616167 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default console tool for the relevant software type", as it is means an update may be inappropriately installed in a not too unusual scenario (adamw, 16:58:51)

  8. (1601479) Packaging issues with outdated hub.docker.com fedora:rawhide containers (adamw, 16:59:06)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601479 (adamw, 16:59:07)
    2. Proposed Blocker, gdbm, NEW (adamw, 16:59:07)
    3. AGREED: 1601479 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - with latest information it's clear this is to do with outdated container images on the docker.com hub, there is no reason to block Fedora 29 release on it (though obviously we should ensure those images are updated more often) (adamw, 17:03:19)

  9. (1618928) grub2-2.02-50.fc29 shows error/debug messages in pager on x86_64, requires user input to complete boot (adamw, 17:03:28)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618928 (adamw, 17:03:28)
    2. Proposed Blocker, grub2, ON_QA (adamw, 17:03:28)
    3. testing has confirmed this is fixed in -51, so we will close the bug (adamw, 17:04:38)

  10. (1619295) nothing provides libpoppler.so.74()(64bit) needed by gdal-libs-2.2.4-7.fc29.x86_64 / libreoffice-pdfimport-1:6.0.6.1-7.fc29.x86_64 (adamw, 17:04:49)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619295 (adamw, 17:04:49)
    2. Proposed Blocker, poppler, NEW (adamw, 17:04:49)
    3. AGREED: 1619295 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - violation of "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from a fully updated, clean default installation of each of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed. ... The upgraded system must include all packages that would be present on the system after a default installation from install media..." (adamw, 17:17:28)

  11. (1616269) [abrt] xorg-x11-server-Xwayland: OsLookupColor(): Display server crashed (adamw, 17:17:35)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616269 (adamw, 17:17:35)
    2. Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-server, NEW (adamw, 17:17:35)
    3. AGREED: 1616269 - punt (delay decision) - we're not yet sure of just how many systems are likely to be affected by this, we need to figure out more precisely what the affected configurations are. sgallagh has volunteered to try and gather some more data by next week (adamw, 17:26:18)
    4. moving on to the proposed Beta FE (adamw, 17:26:37)

  12. (1616118) DNF update fails with "cannot install the best update candidate for package" (adamw, 17:26:56)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616118 (adamw, 17:26:56)
    2. Proposed Freeze Exceptions, dnf, NEW (adamw, 17:26:56)
    3. AGREED: 1616118 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as well as being a Final blocker, it makes sense for this to have an FE for Beta, we certainly would like it fixed if it can safely be fixed. (adamw, 17:34:14)

  13. Open floor (adamw, 17:35:04)


Meeting ended at 17:41:23 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. adamw (169)
  2. lruzicka (63)
  3. Tenk (25)
  4. frantisekz (16)
  5. zodbot (10)
  6. coremodule (7)
  7. sgallagh (3)
  8. bcotton (2)
  9. mboddu (1)
  10. nirik (1)
  11. jlanda (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.