17:01:23 <adamw> #startmeeting F32-blocker-review
17:01:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 10 17:01:23 2020 UTC.
17:01:23 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:01:23 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review'
17:01:23 <adamw> #meetingname F32-blocker-review
17:01:23 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:01:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review'
17:01:24 <kparal> evening
17:01:33 <adamw> who's around for blocker review funtimes?
17:01:37 * kparal is definitely not here
17:01:43 <lruzicka> .hello2
17:01:44 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
17:01:53 * pwhalen is here
17:01:56 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:01:56 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:02:02 <lruzicka> But let's hurry, Yennefer is waiting with the unicorn.
17:02:09 <frantisekz> -_- ...
17:02:48 <lruzicka> also, a wind storm is coming the Brno way ....
17:04:14 <adamw> i hear kparal volunteering to run the meeting!
17:04:34 <frantisekz> yeah... I hear that too... :P :D
17:05:41 <kparal> I nominate lruzicka to run it and frantisekz to update bugzillas
17:05:45 <lruzicka> there is an announcement here in the office, too
17:06:16 <lruzicka> my english is poor, so I cannot come up with those descriptions - as Adam can.
17:06:56 <frantisekz> no problem kparal :)
17:07:52 <bcotton> .hello2
17:07:53 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
17:08:27 <lruzicka> Well, I cannot find the lines to copy, kparal, thought I could access it via the blockerbug app
17:08:55 <adamw> it's fine, i'm doin' it
17:08:57 <adamw> alrighty
17:09:05 <adamw> #chair bcotton frantisekz
17:09:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton frantisekz
17:09:11 <kparal> lruzicka: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/32/beta/irc
17:09:11 <adamw> IMPENDING BOILERPLATE ALERT
17:09:17 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:09:17 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:09:17 <adamw> #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.
17:09:18 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:09:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:09:21 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:09:23 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:09:25 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:09:27 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
17:09:29 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:09:31 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria
17:10:10 <lruzicka> kparal, I saw this, but I thought there were some bot commands to make it.
17:10:35 <adamw> lruzicka: it's auto-refreshed every half an hour
17:10:43 <adamw> lruzicka: for the meeting you just copy and paste from that url
17:10:47 <adamw> it's all nice and low tech :P
17:11:43 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
17:11:44 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
17:11:44 <adamw> #info 4 Accepted Blockers
17:11:47 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:11:51 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
17:11:58 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
17:11:58 <lruzicka> adamw, well the header you have just copied is not there :D
17:11:58 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blockers
17:12:02 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:12:07 <adamw> lruzicka: oh, that's on the SOP page
17:12:10 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:12:27 <adamw> who wants to secretarialize?
17:12:38 <frantisekz> I can handle that adamw
17:13:03 <lruzicka> adamw, thanks found it
17:13:40 <adamw> #info frantisekz will secretarialize
17:13:57 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta blockers
17:14:02 <adamw> #topic (1798792) blivet.errors.DeviceTreeError: failed to add slave root00p2 of device root00
17:14:02 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798792
17:14:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, NEW
17:15:39 <kparal> the proposed criterion is not likely violated, but some other is
17:15:58 <cmurf> installer's not supposed to crash?
17:16:31 <adamw> so, this is booting the installer with an existing virt SCSI or virt IDE (but not virtIO) software RAID set?
17:16:32 <kparal> oh, this is still a crash in the installer? ok
17:16:45 <kparal> but lili says it happens after reboot
17:17:14 <adamw> kparal: "2 boot the newly installed machine with the installer,the crash will happens on the welcome page"
17:17:16 <lruzicka> reboot the installer
17:17:27 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:17:29 <lruzicka> which probably is - restart anaconda
17:17:29 <kparal> I see, you reboot into the installer for the second time
17:17:36 <adamw> (and there's no reason booting an installed system would crash in blivet, we don't run blivet there)
17:17:48 <cmurf> i can't tell because there are no reproduce steps or description of the environment
17:17:51 <adamw> so, i'd say this violates "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to:
17:17:51 <adamw> Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
17:17:59 <adamw> cmurf: it's in comment #14.
17:18:27 <cmurf> OIC
17:18:37 <kparal> +1 beta blocker
17:19:10 <bcotton> +1 beta blocker
17:19:17 <frantisekz> +1 beta blocker
17:19:19 <pwhalen> +1 beta blocker
17:19:21 <lruzicka> +1
17:19:24 <cmurf> yeah +1
17:20:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1798792 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a violation of Beta criterion "...the installer must be able to: Correctly interpret...any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing...software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
17:20:46 <adamw> holy ellipsis, batman
17:21:09 <lruzicka> acklipsis
17:21:19 <adamw> frantisekz: btw, did you file a bug on the whole 'rawhide is utterly borked' thing yet? :P
17:21:22 <adamw> cos we should probably vote on that
17:21:26 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:21:28 <pwhalen> ack
17:21:30 <kparal> ack
17:21:38 <frantisekz> adamw: not yet, I though I'd wait for you
17:21:41 <cmurf> haha
17:21:53 <frantisekz> I can do that now though, or do you want to do it?
17:21:54 <frantisekz> ack
17:22:12 <lruzicka> let us save it for next week
17:22:32 <cmurf> I should've gone for all caps on that, no mere haha is adequate for having nearly spat out my coffee
17:23:38 <bcotton> ack
17:23:39 <adamw> don't bother expensing a new keyboard, we don't have the money for those sorts of luxuries around here
17:23:45 <adamw> #agreed 1798792 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a violation of Beta criterion "...the installer must be able to: Correctly interpret...any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing...software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
17:24:02 <adamw> frantisekz: yeah, if you could file a quick skeleton bug while i get through the rest of the meeting it'd be good
17:24:23 <frantisekz> okay, will do
17:25:11 <adamw> #topic proposed Final blockers
17:25:21 <adamw> #topic (1798392) AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'get_type_string'
17:25:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798392
17:25:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:26:47 <kparal> looks +1
17:27:03 <bcotton> seems pretty blocky to me
17:27:13 <adamw> huh, another iscsi bug different from my iscsi bug...
17:27:19 <adamw> i don't think mine's fixed, so i assume this one happens first
17:27:19 <adamw> +1
17:27:30 <pwhalen> +1
17:27:32 <frantisekz> +1
17:27:33 <cmurf> +1
17:27:36 <lruzicka> +1
17:27:50 <bcotton> +1 final blocker
17:28:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1798392 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices"
17:28:44 <lruzicka> ack
17:29:15 <bcotton> ack
17:29:35 <cmurf> ack
17:29:39 <kparal> ack
17:30:17 <pwhalen> ack
17:30:36 <adamw> #agreed 1798392 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices"
17:30:43 <adamw> #topic (1798876) unable to add a fcoe disk as there is no nic listed
17:30:43 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798876
17:30:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:31:14 <adamw> +1
17:31:49 <cmurf> +1
17:31:58 <kparal> it's not clear what happens and what should have happened
17:32:14 <kparal> ah, must read the title again
17:32:24 <kparal> alright, +1
17:32:27 <lruzicka> +1
17:32:34 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:32:37 <pwhalen> +1
17:32:45 <frantisekz> +1
17:32:45 <bcotton> +1
17:33:28 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1798876 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices"
17:33:35 <bcotton> ack
17:33:36 <cmurf> ack
17:33:39 <pwhalen> ack
17:33:40 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:33:44 <adamw> #agreed 1798876 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices"
17:33:50 <adamw> #topic (1801087) colord fails to start due to selinux
17:33:51 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801087
17:33:51 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, colord, NEW
17:34:16 <cmurf> +1
17:34:21 <lruzicka> +1
17:34:45 <kparal> that's not the correct criterion
17:35:01 <Southern_Gentlem> is this a colord issue or a selinux issue?
17:35:04 <kparal> but we have some for crashed services
17:35:52 <lruzicka> yeah, this one? All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present.
17:36:00 <kparal> yes
17:36:01 <kparal> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria#System_services
17:36:15 <adamw> well, if he gets a crash notification, then it *would* violate that criterion too :)
17:36:18 <adamw> but yeah, that's the obvious one.
17:36:22 <kparal> lruzicka: there is no notification for selinux issues by default. They removed setroubleshoot from the default install set
17:36:28 <adamw> bets on this being glib again
17:36:29 <bcotton> +1 with a change in violation to the one lruzicka said
17:36:50 <frantisekz> +1
17:36:52 <kparal> adamw: yeah, unless it's caught by abrt
17:36:59 <cmurf> good catch, "must start properly"
17:37:04 <kparal> but for selinux you'll receive no notification
17:37:13 <kparal> +1
17:37:28 <pwhalen> +1
17:37:28 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:37:47 <lruzicka> so +1 again, just for the case
17:38:30 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1801087 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present"
17:38:50 <kparal> ack
17:39:01 <frantisekz> ack
17:39:05 <lruzicka> ack
17:39:08 <cmurf> ack
17:39:09 <pwhalen> ack
17:39:46 <adamw> #agreed 1801087 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present"
17:40:00 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers redux
17:40:05 <adamw> #info we have a new ch-ch-ch-challenger!
17:40:11 <frantisekz> :D
17:40:33 <adamw> #topic (1801353) Mounting root from installation media fails since systemd-245
17:40:37 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801353
17:40:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:40:51 <cmurf> ummmhmmm
17:41:09 <frantisekz> disclaimer: I am not 100% sure it's a systemd problem, just wild guess, I didn't have too much time to look into that today
17:41:20 <cmurf> I had to manually install systemd-245 on rawhide, it wouldn't come through on updates
17:41:21 <adamw> it seems like a reasonable guess to me, though.
17:41:28 <cmurf> and i'm not hitting this
17:41:32 <adamw> cmurf: it's in the installer
17:41:55 <cmurf> how is it on install media already if it wouldn't come in on an update? i guess that's irrelevant
17:41:58 <adamw> well, live images too
17:42:03 <cmurf> ok so some kind of assembly problem
17:42:09 <adamw> could well be, yes
17:42:11 <cmurf> ahhha
17:42:21 <cmurf> so in my case i didn't rebuild the initramfs
17:42:27 <kparal> so this happened just at the very last compose?
17:42:33 <frantisekz> no
17:42:35 <adamw> or it's just to do with specifically how we boot live/install media
17:42:37 <cmurf> which means systemd-244 in the initramfs and systemd-245 after switchroot
17:42:44 <frantisekz> I think since 0207
17:42:55 <adamw> kparal: from 20200207.n.2
17:43:04 <frantisekz> which is the first successful compose since systemd-245
17:43:05 <kparal> so 3 composes in a row are broken?
17:43:12 <adamw> yes
17:43:19 <kparal> ok, +1
17:43:43 <cmurf> oh dear
17:43:59 <lruzicka> well, this sounds like a lot of fun for the party
17:44:02 <lruzicka> +1
17:44:04 <pwhalen> +1
17:44:14 <bcotton> +1
17:44:17 <adamw> this could actually be like that issue recently which was to do with parsing of our weird ISOs, i guess
17:44:21 <adamw> but completely guessing so far
17:44:26 <frantisekz> +1 , and we have a day to branching and post branch freeze :)
17:44:28 <cmurf> yeah i need to see logs
17:44:52 <adamw> this is actually an automatic blocker and doesn't really need voting on, but hey.
17:44:57 <cmurf> and actually, before i do that i'm gonna rebuild the initramfs on this VM so it uses systemd-245 in the initramfs
17:45:02 <cmurf> right, image is DOA
17:45:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1801353 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations"
17:45:22 <cmurf> ack
17:45:22 <frantisekz> ack
17:45:26 <kparal> ack
17:45:29 <lruzicka> ack
17:46:07 <cmurf> where'd this show up?
17:46:20 <adamw> how do you mean where?
17:46:24 <adamw> #agreed 1801353 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations"
17:47:22 <cmurf> it's not in the blocker tool listing
17:47:24 <cmurf> (yet)
17:47:28 <adamw> cmurf: frantisekz just filed it
17:47:33 <adamw> i asked him to earlier in the meeting, remember
17:47:33 <cmurf> gotcha
17:48:13 <lruzicka> adamw, oh ... and I thought you were referring to the asynchronous BB process and its application
17:48:18 <cmurf> haha no but what i do or don't remember isn't relevant :D
17:48:50 <adamw> lruzicka: i meant we could just have marked it as accepted under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Automatic_blockers
17:48:52 <adamw> but it doesn't really matter
17:49:11 <frantisekz> btw, I've just pinged zbyszek about that blocker
17:49:28 <frantisekz> so they know sooner than later, since final systemd-245 is expected soon
17:49:35 <adamw> #info all accepted Beta blockers seem to be at some level of 'being worked on', but we need to resolve the new showstopper before we can be sure about them all
17:50:01 <adamw> frantisekz: i think he may be aware of it already, i'm on a private mail thread with him and zpytela which references it
17:50:03 <adamw> but anyhoo
17:50:06 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:50:14 <adamw> any other business? any specific notes on any of the accepted blockers?
17:51:11 <kparal> nope
17:51:31 <frantisekz> probably just thanks for the meeting adamw, will do secretary stuff in a moment
17:51:51 <Southern_Gentlem> salt is a question for me. it appears to have several vulnerbilities and newer upstream releases
17:52:19 <lruzicka> I have nothing to share just now.
17:53:56 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: well, there's the unresolved security issue criterion at final
17:54:09 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria#Security_bugs
17:54:20 <adamw> if you know of a specific unfixed issue that meets that criterion, you could propose it
17:56:00 <jlanda> thanks all
17:56:37 <Southern_Gentlem> but of course i dont know if salt is in any of the blocking stuff
17:57:07 <jlanda> kparal: KDE spin probably has the sethroubleshoot thing yet, and is blocker too
17:57:13 <kparal> I'd say salt is essential. But don't each too much of it.
17:57:20 <kparal> *eat
17:57:35 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: it doesn't actually need to be for that criterion
17:57:35 <kparal> jlanda: does it have colord, though?
17:57:44 <jlanda> Oh, good question
17:58:07 <kparal> just rhetorical, don't spend time on it :)
17:59:55 <jlanda> na :)
18:02:48 <adamw> ok, thanks for coming everyone!
18:02:51 <adamw> #endmeeting