16:00:13 <adamw> #startmeeting F34-blocker-review
16:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 29 16:00:13 2021 UTC.
16:00:13 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:13 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:00:18 <adamw> #meetingname F34-blocker-review
16:00:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:00:24 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:27 <adamw> lruzicka: it's now :D
16:00:33 <lruzicka[m]> .hello lruzicka
16:00:34 <adamw> morning folks, who's around for blocker fun?
16:00:34 <zodbot> lruzicka[m]: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:01:25 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:01:26 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:01:37 <coremodule> .hello2
16:01:38 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:01:45 * coremodule is here, willing to act as secretary.
16:01:58 <kalev> .hello2
16:01:59 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
16:02:04 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello
16:02:04 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
16:02:07 * kalev lurks a bit, not sure I'll be around for the whole meeting.
16:02:13 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:02:14 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com>
16:02:39 <bcotton> .hello2
16:02:40 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:03:12 <pwhalen> .hello2
16:03:13 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
16:03:53 <adamw> ahoyhoy everyone
16:04:24 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
16:04:25 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
16:04:34 <Eighth_Doctor> 👋
16:04:41 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:04:42 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:06:38 <adamw> alrighty, impending slowly-pasted boilerplate alert
16:06:59 <adamw> #chair sgallagh conan_kudo
16:06:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw conan_kudo sgallagh
16:07:09 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:07:13 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:07:19 <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
16:07:26 <sgallagh> Philosophy? Here?
16:07:26 <adamw> the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
16:07:31 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:07:37 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:07:42 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:47 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:52 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:57 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:08:01 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:08:06 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria
16:08:11 <adamw> #info we have (for Final):
16:08:21 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:08:21 <adamw> #info 2 Accepted Blockers
16:08:26 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:08:45 <adamw> sgallagh: unaccountably, i can't find a turtleneck emoji
16:09:15 <adamw> coremodule: did you volunteer to secretarialize yet?
16:09:21 <coremodule> yee
16:09:22 <lruzicka[m]> 🐢
16:09:27 <coremodule> up at the top
16:09:47 <sgallagh> 🧐
16:09:54 <coremodule> 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
16:10:07 <lruzicka[m]> sgallagh: the neck is on the left hand side just below the head :)
16:10:42 <adamw> .fire coremodule
16:10:42 <zodbot> adamw fires coremodule
16:10:52 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize after he's done clearing out his desk
16:10:56 <cmurf> turtle farm
16:10:59 <coremodule> can you fire a volunteer?
16:11:05 <adamw> i can
16:11:08 <coremodule> dammit, fine
16:11:17 <adamw> you exceeded the maximum allowable number of turtles
16:11:22 <lruzicka[m]> <adamw "*i* can"> new apple product?
16:11:22 <adamw> that's a firin'
16:11:46 <adamw> alrighty, let's get started with the:
16:11:51 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final Blockers
16:11:51 <sgallagh> adamw: Agreed. You don't need more than four, so long as they are trained by a rat.
16:11:57 <Eighth_Doctor> 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
16:12:06 <coremodule> the devolution....
16:12:08 <adamw> where's my largest cannon
16:12:17 <adamw> #topic (1937783) Abrt does not catch a simulated segfault.
16:12:22 <sgallagh> adamw: It sank the boat you mounted it aboard.
16:12:23 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937783
16:12:28 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/300
16:12:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, NEW
16:12:46 <adamw> so, this has been kicking around for a while due to questions about reproducibility
16:13:08 <adamw> right now our best guess appears to be that it happens if you have this directory in your home that libreport wants to migrate but chokes on
16:13:20 <adamw> (though i still can't figure out why anything would fail when hitting that codepath, but never mind)
16:13:34 <Eighth_Doctor> that's a bizarre edge case
16:13:47 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't know if we want to block on it though
16:14:10 <Eighth_Doctor> does it break F33->F34 upgraded systems?
16:14:16 <Eighth_Doctor> or F32->F34 upgraded systems?
16:14:23 <adamw> yeah, we do have a 'all criteria must be satisfied on upgrade' rule but this seems a bit corner case-y
16:14:28 <adamw> don't know if we have that info
16:14:36 <sgallagh> I have an F32->F33->F34 system and I'm not hitting it
16:14:45 <Eighth_Doctor> I didn't hit this either
16:14:52 <sgallagh> I can't speak for F32->F34 directly
16:14:53 <lruzicka[m]> I must admit that I was not able to find any reason why selinux prevented it on my machine.
16:15:06 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker
16:15:07 <sgallagh> -1 blocker
16:15:10 <lruzicka[m]> My machine was updated from F33.
16:15:17 <Eighth_Doctor> -1 blocker
16:15:20 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 FE
16:15:29 <Eighth_Doctor> (if there's a problem and they can fix it, sure)
16:15:32 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker
16:15:35 <lruzicka[m]> Ok, -1 blocker
16:15:39 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
16:15:54 <Southern_Gentlem> at the moment we are not seeing it and it appears to be fixed so nothing to fix
16:15:56 <sgallagh> I'd consider an FE, but we aren't in Freeze for another week anyway
16:16:17 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm inclined to mark it for FE
16:16:34 <Eighth_Doctor> simply because of the freeze point being the end of this week
16:16:40 <kalev> I think it's weird to mark something as FE if we haven't seen the fix
16:17:03 <kalev> it's like, we'll take anything, even a rebase without looking at what's there
16:17:18 <sgallagh> kalev: an FE doesn't require us to accept the fix
16:17:25 <adamw> we accept the issue as being in principle significant enough
16:17:26 <adamw> we're not saying we'd definitely take any particular fix
16:17:37 <sgallagh> Just that we're okay with the risks involved with accepting it during Freeze
16:17:39 <adamw> but in this case i'm not super stressed as it appears to be an upgrade-only issue
16:17:40 <Southern_Gentlem> if next week it appears its back we ca look at it again so either punt or -1 block
16:17:44 <adamw> which makes an FE less important
16:17:55 <sgallagh> I
16:18:00 <adamw> so, -1 blocker
16:18:04 <sgallagh> I'd vote -1 FE if we were already in Freeze
16:18:12 <kalev> -1 blocker
16:18:13 <cmurf> i'm  hitting other abrt issues, but not this one, on clean installs
16:18:15 <lruzicka[m]> let's do -1 and if it jumps out again, we can repropose
16:18:27 <sgallagh> Because I think the risk of breaking ABRT for others is greater than the risk of someone hitting this bug.
16:18:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1937783 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to be a corner case affecting upgrades only, most testers cannot reproduce it, so impact does not seem broad enough to qualify as a blocker
16:18:45 <kalev> ack
16:18:48 <sgallagh> ack
16:18:48 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:18:50 <frantisekz> ack
16:18:52 <Eighth_Doctor> ack
16:19:07 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:19:29 <bcotton> ack
16:19:34 <adamw> #agreed 1937783 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this appears to be a corner case affecting upgrades only, most testers cannot reproduce it, so impact does not seem broad enough to qualify as a blocker
16:21:40 <adamw> #topic (1942443) Login using password failed after upgrade to Fedora 34
16:21:41 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942443
16:21:41 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/317
16:21:41 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:21:42 <adamw> mehhhh, how many people need to "log in" anyway
16:21:42 <adamw> rejected
16:21:48 <adamw> don't we all just boot up and admire the beauty of the login screen? isn't that the point?
16:22:27 <sgallagh> adamw: I think you're confusing us with Mac users again
16:22:30 <cmurf> sounds familiar
16:22:44 <cmurf> the bug sounds familiar
16:23:01 <kalev> several people seem to be affected
16:23:27 <adamw> cmurf: it's a sort of follow-on from an earlier blocker
16:23:27 <cmurf> we had something like this as a beta blocker, so I guess the issue is more widespread and the fix didn't completely work?
16:23:28 <adamw> i think
16:23:34 <Eighth_Doctor> I've been affected by this too
16:23:37 <adamw> the fix for the beta blocker broke this
16:23:53 <Eighth_Doctor> didn't something like this also happen during F33 too?
16:23:59 <cmurf> the fix caused a regression?
16:23:59 <kalev> I think I saw benzea comment earlier that he is confused why this appeared again because he thought it got fixed
16:25:00 <adamw> or, wait, hm
16:25:05 <adamw> yeah i'm confused too :D
16:25:07 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933520 is the one we closed last
16:25:49 <Eighth_Doctor> we really should switch pam to have layered configs
16:25:52 <Eighth_Doctor> this crap sucks every release
16:26:39 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:27:14 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:27:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 blocker
16:27:27 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:28:06 <lruzicka[m]> +1 blocker
16:28:16 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:28:31 <frantisekz> +1 Blocker
16:28:44 <adamw> er
16:28:47 <adamw> i am still trying to figure things out here
16:28:57 <adamw> like whether this is a dupe of the bug we already accepted as a blocker
16:30:37 <adamw> so benzea thinks this is a dupe of 1933520 , which is already accepted as a blocker but should be fixed already
16:30:54 <cmurf> fixed it for some and not others?
16:32:50 <Southern_Gentlem> so if they think 1933520 is fixed then this isnt a dupe
16:32:53 <adamw> or they somehow got older packages
16:32:54 <adamw> not sure
16:33:03 <Southern_Gentlem> +punt
16:33:41 <cmurf> there was a recent bug in Silverblue where some things got downgraded
16:33:47 <cmurf> i don't know if this was one of the packages
16:34:42 <cmurf> https://github.com/fedora-silverblue/issue-tracker/issues/138
16:34:47 <cmurf> nss is in that list
16:35:17 <kalev> there was a broken dep between nss and nspr
16:35:45 <kalev> the builds were submitted separately to bodhi whereas they should have been both in the same bodhi update so they can go out in lockstep
16:35:46 <cmurf> did it affect f34 silverblue though? that bug report is 33
16:36:15 * kalev doesn't know.
16:36:51 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
16:36:57 <adamw> reporters didn't say anything about silverblue
16:37:23 <adamw> so our best guess for now is that for some people the config change from -6 is somehow not taking effect, possibly due to local customizations
16:37:36 <adamw> so i'm gonna propose we keep this open and punt for clarification on that
16:37:44 <adamw> thoughts?
16:37:47 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
16:38:00 <kalev> sounds like a good plan, +1 from me
16:38:00 <cmurf> comment 8 reporter mentioend silverblue
16:38:18 <cmurf> +1 punt
16:38:34 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt
16:38:35 <pwhalen> +1 punt
16:38:38 <frantisekz> +1 punt
16:39:11 <adamw> cmurf: meant the op, heh
16:39:26 <cmurf> needinfo, can it be reproduced with a clean install of beta or newer
16:39:27 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt
16:39:44 <bcotton> +1 punt
16:39:45 <cmurf> or an upgrade from fully updated 32/33, etc
16:40:03 <Southern_Gentlem> so we need info
16:40:15 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1942443 - punt (delay decision) - this seems serious, but benzea believes it's the same as #1933520 and should have been fixed already. if it is not, we need to figure out under what circumstances that fix isn't working before we can decide if the impact is wide enough to be a blocker
16:40:31 <kalev> ack
16:40:33 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:40:36 <cmurf> ack
16:41:24 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:41:49 <adamw> #agreed 1942443 - punt (delay decision) - this seems serious, but benzea believes it's the same as #1933520 and should have been fixed already. if it is not, we need to figure out under what circumstances that fix isn't working before we can decide if the impact is wide enough to be a blocker
16:42:03 <adamw> #topic (1942175) External monitor doesn't work on Lenovo P50 after upgrading to F34
16:42:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942175
16:42:15 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/316
16:42:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mesa, NEW
16:42:34 <cmurf> punt/needinfo, retest with updated mesa
16:42:56 <cmurf> do we have a dual display blocker criterion?
16:43:02 <cmurf> it'd be a regression but...
16:43:05 <kalev> I just submitted the mesa fix that airlied did to bodhi to get the fix out
16:43:34 * kalev has to go make dinner now.
16:45:51 <adamw> yeah, it's a borderline call for blocker anyway
16:45:58 <adamw> but i vote punt in the interests of moving along :P
16:46:05 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt
16:46:24 <Eighth_Doctor> (though I'd be interested in us getting multi-monitor criteria ...)
16:46:56 <pwhalen> +1 punt
16:47:00 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt
16:47:08 <lruzicka[m]> +1 multidisplay crit
16:47:24 <pwhalen> also +1 multidisplay crit
16:47:31 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
16:47:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed #1942175 - punt (delay decision) - we are waiting on the reporter to report status with a new mesa build here.
16:47:44 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:47:49 <adamw> if anyone wants to propose a criterion, please do, on test@
16:47:54 <Eighth_Doctor> ack
16:47:54 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:47:56 <bcotton> ack
16:48:02 <pwhalen> ack
16:48:31 <frantisekz> ack
16:48:55 <adamw> #agreed #1942175 - punt (delay decision) - we are waiting on the reporter to report status with a new mesa build here.
16:49:03 <adamw> #topic (1941971) gnome-shell crashes when display blanking is activated
16:49:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941971
16:49:14 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/318
16:49:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mutter, MODIFIED
16:49:42 <cmurf> i am seeing gnome-shell crashes on logout and reboot sometimes, not as much with the final release version
16:49:48 <cmurf> but not when the screen blanks
16:51:37 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:52:26 <adamw> per discussion, this seems specific to having hybrid graphics
16:52:32 <adamw> and possibly having one head driven by each card
16:52:36 <cmurf> hmm
16:52:40 <cmurf> call for testers?
16:52:49 <adamw> "Disconnecting the external monitor cures the issue...Unchecking optimus support in the bios also cures the issue on this laptop"
16:52:53 <lruzicka[m]> I do not have hybrid graphics, so cannot try.
16:53:04 <cmurf> but if we don't have a dual display criterion...
16:53:29 <lruzicka[m]> cmurf: and the dual display criterion should be with one graphics or two?
16:53:35 <cmurf> it's kindof a bad bug
16:53:42 <lruzicka[m]> I'd say one card - two displays.
16:54:07 <adamw> so i'd say either -1 for not being broad enough or punt for a proposed dual-head criteria, but either way there's a fix in u-t so this is going away
16:54:12 <Southern_Gentlem> and this is 2 cards-2 displays
16:54:38 <geraldosimiao> Ohh I'm almost missed
16:54:38 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:54:39 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:54:45 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt so we can revisit
16:54:54 <lruzicka[m]> +1 punt
16:55:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 punt
16:55:19 <bcotton> -1 blocker, 0 punt
16:55:48 <cmurf> punters will write up a dual head criterion? :D
16:56:31 <adamw> i'm counting a punt vote as volunteering, yes ;)
16:56:58 <lruzicka[m]> cmurf: I can write one, but I am not sure if we really want two cards two displays ?
16:57:03 <frantisekz> -1 blocker
16:57:07 <lruzicka[m]> adamw: dtto
16:57:15 <cmurf> might need to ask one or more maintainers
16:57:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1941971 - punt (delay decision) - this seems quite configuration specific (appears to happen when there are two displays driven by different adapters), but there is some interest in writing a criterion that may cover this case, so we are punting for that discussion to happen. note the bug will likely be closed in any case as a fix has been submitted
16:57:38 <pwhalen> +1 punt
16:57:39 <pwhalen> ack
16:57:43 <cmurf> ack
16:57:45 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:57:45 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:57:47 <bcotton> ack
16:58:04 <adamw> #agreed 1941971 - punt (delay decision) - this seems quite configuration specific (appears to happen when there are two displays driven by different adapters), but there is some interest in writing a criterion that may cover this case, so we are punting for that discussion to happen. note the bug will likely be closed in any case as a fix has been submitted
16:58:13 <cmurf> i'm not sure how much more complicated/fragile it is for separate gpus to drive displays versus one gpu
16:58:21 <adamw> #topic (1943943) Hitting "Update All" in Plasma Discover sometimes does nothing, just cycles back
16:58:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943943
16:58:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/320
16:58:36 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
16:58:41 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
16:58:46 <adamw> ooo look, shiny new feature there
16:59:02 <cmurf> smells blockery to me
16:59:06 <adamw> so, i reported this from openqa testing, haven't confirmed it manually yet, but it's causing update tests to fail and is pretty annoying
16:59:17 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 blocker
16:59:18 <cmurf> must be able to update with default update mechanism etc
16:59:21 <adamw> it also seems like if you hit it, sometimes even clicking the button ten times in a row doesn't make it work, as that's what i made openqa do
16:59:23 <Eighth_Doctor> it's pretty blockery
16:59:25 <adamw> it just keeps cycling back
16:59:35 <cmurf> +1 blocker
16:59:36 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:59:38 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:59:44 <adamw> let me see if rdieter is around
17:00:00 <lruzicka[m]> +1 blocker
17:00:06 <Eighth_Doctor> KDE SIG meeting is starting now, so probably?
17:00:49 <geraldosimiao> Yeah already voted on the ticket +1 blocker
17:03:00 <adamw> hi rdieter
17:03:19 <adamw> did you see this report yet? any idea what might be going on? any thoughts on whether it should be a blocker? thanks!
17:04:07 <frantisekz> +1 blocker
17:04:22 <rdieter> adamw: I saw, that's definitely not ideal.  I'll report it to upstream folks.  I'm *hoping* it's just a matter of lack of user-feedback that it's doing some work after the initial click
17:04:38 <rdieter> but possible it's worse and/or something else.  <shrug>
17:05:16 <rdieter> or wait, I'll review, my recollection was wrong.  your description says click does nothing and cycles back.  got it
17:05:31 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
17:05:44 <adamw> yeah
17:06:03 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
17:06:04 <adamw> well, it's not that it does nothing, it briefly seems to do...something
17:06:10 <adamw> but then cycles right back to showing the button
17:07:02 <adamw> the test boots to console, sets things up so an update is available, then starts up graphical.target, logs in, runs Discover, clicks the 'update' item on the left, then clicks 'Update All'
17:07:35 <adamw> (it doesn't seem like it ever needs to manually refresh, the button is always visible when it gets to that screen)
17:07:42 <rdieter> I'm ok considering as a blocker at least until we can get some upstream feedback
17:09:20 <adamw> ok
17:09:21 <adamw> thanks
17:09:22 * cmurf is confused
17:09:27 <adamw> i can try to get some pk debugging output
17:09:42 <adamw> cmurf: what are you confused about this time :P
17:10:03 <cmurf> Discover is the default add/remove/update tool?
17:10:18 <cmurf> is it using packagekit on the backend?
17:11:13 <cmurf> doesn't matter, never mind
17:11:16 <adamw> yes and yes.
17:12:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical package manager). This includes
17:12:09 <adamw> downloading of packages to be installed/updated"
17:12:15 <adamw> did that fit a line?
17:12:16 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:12:19 <bcotton> ack
17:12:24 <frantisekz> it didn't
17:12:24 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:12:33 <frantisekz> nack, ofc, two lines reasoning
17:12:33 <pwhalen> ack
17:12:34 <cmurf> ok maybe Discover has some way of launching in debug/verbose mode similar to Software
17:12:37 <cmurf> ack
17:13:25 <cmurf> i'm acking the logic not the formatting :D
17:13:28 <Southern_Gentlem> is f34 kde going to wayland?
17:13:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able to...update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops"
17:13:53 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: yeah
17:14:42 <lruzicka[m]> ack again
17:14:59 <pwhalen> ack
17:15:07 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:15:36 <adamw> #agreed 1943943 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we will do more testing to confirm this issue affects manual testers and try to diagnose it further, but for now it looks like a blocker as a violation of "The installed system must be able to...update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops"
17:16:32 <adamw> ok, that's all the proposed blockers
17:16:42 <adamw> #topic Proposed Freeze Exception
17:16:54 <adamw> #topic (1942294) Enter, space, backspace key not working with hangul input method
17:17:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942294
17:17:05 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/319
17:17:09 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mutter, POST
17:17:14 <adamw> well this sounds definitely +1
17:17:17 <adamw> might be a blocker
17:17:18 <adamw> let me read that criterion
17:17:21 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe
17:17:30 <lruzicka[m]> +1fe
17:17:51 <Southern_Gentlem> well most likely fixed in the other mutter we had before ?
17:17:51 <cmurf> might be a blocker
17:18:57 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:19:08 <cmurf> those three are basic input keys, it'd make Hangul input method unworkable
17:19:18 <adamw> no indication this fix is in that mutter
17:19:32 <adamw> "Note this affects various input methods, not only Hangul"
17:19:39 <adamw> so sounds....bad
17:19:42 <cmurf> yes
17:19:43 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
17:19:45 <cmurf> +1 blocker
17:19:47 <geraldosimiao> Ack
17:20:04 <cmurf> but also needinfo mutter folks
17:20:13 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
17:20:24 <frantisekz> +1 blocker then
17:20:37 <adamw> yeah, for now it sounds worrying enough to block
17:21:04 <lruzicka[m]> ok, revoting +1
17:21:41 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1942294 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is promoted to a blocker as a conditional violation of various desktop criteria that require use of the affected functionality in affected languages/input methods, with reference also to the "Keyboard layout configuration" criterion
17:21:46 <cmurf> ack
17:21:51 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:22:01 <lruzicka[m]> jack - joyous ack
17:22:14 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:23:04 <adamw> #agreed 1942294 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is promoted to a blocker as a conditional violation of various desktop criteria that require use of the affected functionality in affected languages/input methods, with reference also to the "Keyboard layout configuration" criterion
17:24:42 <adamw> ok, while we're here, let's take a look at:
17:24:47 <adamw> #topic Accepted Blocker review
17:25:01 <adamw> a reminder that we're not voting on these, they're accepted already, we're just checking progress with fixing them
17:25:03 <adamw> #topic (1929643) logout after switch returns the user to console instead of sddm
17:25:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929643
17:25:14 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/235
17:25:19 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, sddm, NEW
17:25:25 <adamw> rdieter: any news here? it's been on the list for a while
17:27:02 * Southern_Gentlem is updating his F34 kde VM so he can test
17:30:01 <Southern_Gentlem> can we come back to this?
17:30:31 <Eighth_Doctor> adamw, rdieter is finishing up rebooting his laptop
17:30:41 <Eighth_Doctor> he'll be back momentarily
17:31:02 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: there are only two of these anyway
17:31:05 <adamw> let's just hold on for rdieter
17:32:57 * adamw plays muzak
17:33:07 <adamw> okay, one more minute then we'll move on. :P
17:33:44 * Southern_Gentlem hears the Jeopardy theme
17:35:49 <Eighth_Doctor> rdieter's networking is busted (he's going to file a bug), but he's got nothing new on it
17:35:57 <adamw> alright, thanks
17:36:14 <adamw> #info this has been hanging around for a while, we have pinged rdieter to try and do something on it
17:36:22 <adamw> #topic (1938630) include new bootloaders on Fedora 34 install media so UEFI Secure Boot enabled systems can boot from them
17:36:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938630
17:36:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/310
17:36:37 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, shim, ASSIGNED
17:36:59 <adamw> cmurf: did you say you knew something about this?
17:37:25 <cmurf> it's stale information at this point, two weeks old
17:40:28 <adamw> well that beats anything else in the bug, so spill :D
17:42:57 <cmurf> yeah it's complicated, shim 15.3 is what we need but it also needs to be signed to work on systems with UEFI Secure Boot enabled or it will be rejected
17:43:15 <adamw> well, yes, that's sort of the point
17:43:26 <adamw> but are you talking about microsoft's signoff? or just koji build?
17:43:53 <cmurf> i'm not sure about the status of 15.3, but two weeks ago it needed more testing and the trouble is if it's premature, gets signed, and there are enough bugs to warrant rebuild then it also means resigning
17:44:25 <cmurf> signing is maybe a few days or a week? not multiple weeks
17:45:57 <cmurf> my take on the progress is that we're likely to slip and not hit either preferred or target dates, but now i'm really speculating
17:46:04 <adamw> so we're talking about microsoft's signing, okay.
17:46:47 <cmurf> we're talking about all of it, it can't be signed until it's sufficiently done and tested to hopefully avoid having to rebuild and resign another one
17:47:54 <adamw> okay,
17:48:29 <cmurf> but we also can't test it until it's signed
17:48:46 <adamw> #info status here is the upstream 15.3 release is still being worked on and devs need to be confident it is baked before submitting it for SB signing, we cannot do much downstream until that is done, we do not have a very solid ETA on that yet
17:48:58 * Southern_Gentlem fully updated f34 kde in a VM i can logout and it takes back to the login screen
17:49:01 <cmurf> ack
17:49:03 <adamw> bcotton_: this seems like it might need some whipping
17:49:17 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: i believe the bug is *after switching users*
17:49:30 <adamw> you need to have two user accounts, log in as one, switch to the other, log out
17:49:40 <cmurf> yeah the past track record is whipping doesn't work well, it sorta defies even getting approximate time frames
17:49:57 <cmurf> it really reminds me of book writing
17:50:05 <cmurf> publisher: look just pick a date
17:50:06 * Southern_Gentlem testing
17:50:42 <cmurf> author: too many unknowns, could be 3 weeks could be 3 months
17:50:56 <cmurf> or use the cableguy metaphor
17:51:19 <lruzicka[m]> Sorry, I will need to go. Kids claim their bedroom.
17:51:25 <lruzicka[m]> Have a nice day, everyone.
17:51:52 <cmurf> multiple things have to get done and each of them has a range of time, so i think that puts us at target release date at the earliest and maybe slipping a couple weeks at the latest
17:52:44 <adamw> cya lruzicka
17:52:47 <adamw> we're mostly done here
17:52:49 <cmurf> what'll help make it go faster once it lands though, is being ready to do a test day
17:53:17 <cmurf> and have as many folks with UEFI merely boot a USB stick with the new shim and grub
17:53:50 <cmurf> the more and early test coverage we get, the better
17:55:15 <bcotton> adamw: Delta doesn't have a direct IND-SEA route anymore, but I stand by my offer to go sit on Satya Nadella's desk :-)
17:55:21 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf,  so that will pull in with the Respins
17:55:58 <cmurf> i think adamw or bcotton can just ping pjones directly on irc, i think bz doesn't get his attention very quickly right now
17:56:16 <adamw> i ping him by irc, bugzilla, fax and telegraph
17:56:29 <adamw> then when that doesn't work i call all the bars in massachusetts till i find the one he's in
17:56:30 <cmurf> as for f33, it's going to get new shim and new grub
17:57:00 <cmurf> too soon to tell if f32 will get it
17:57:10 <cmurf> best effort once everything else is stable and working
17:57:33 <cmurf> and 32 may go EOL and cut loose at that point, and we'll just recommend UEFI Secure Boot folks upgrade
17:57:36 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf in this case i was referring to F34
17:58:41 <cmurf> do we want to draw straws who bugs pjones? :D
17:58:56 <Southern_Gentlem> why not both
17:59:03 <bcotton> well i'm not wearing the shirt, but let's #action bcotton
17:59:16 <bcotton> (mattdm is wearing the shirt today, so i guess that's close enough)
18:01:08 <adamw> #action bcotton to keep on top of progress here
18:01:12 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:01:17 <adamw> alright, that's everything I had
18:01:46 <cmurf> Southern_Gentlem: just the potential for regressions for a larger number of people than those who benefit from e.g. f32 having UEFI Secure Boot support beyond its EOL
18:02:45 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf well its time for them to upgrade so not an issue to me
18:03:13 <cmurf> yep
18:04:10 <geraldosimiao> Friends, this bug have blocker potential? Or not? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1940968
18:06:17 <adamw> gonna say probably not
18:06:32 <adamw> my vote anyway
18:06:41 <adamw> it's annoying, but there are workarounds and seems reasonable to fix with update
18:06:45 <adamw> anyone else have thoughts?
18:06:56 <adamw> i'd give it an FE for lives, though, if we got to that point
18:08:08 <geraldosimiao> For info purposes: I came back to my notebook and tried to reproduce the kde logout bug
18:08:21 <geraldosimiao> It seems working fine here
18:08:30 <geraldosimiao> No bug
18:08:53 <geraldosimiao> Switching users and all
18:09:09 <bcotton> i'll second adamw's feelings. geraldosimiao if you feel differently, feel free to propose it as a blocker anyway :-)
18:09:27 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 FE
18:09:51 <geraldosimiao> That plasma wayland is annoying but I think it's only a FE...
18:10:01 <adamw> geraldosimiao: interesting, thanks, can you post in the bug?
18:10:25 <Southern_Gentlem> and KDe is a blocking DE
18:10:25 <geraldosimiao> Yes sure
18:11:25 <geraldosimiao> I tried to say *plasma wayland bug... Rsrsrrs
18:12:00 <geraldosimiao> Smartphone doesn't help here
18:14:26 <adamw> okay, any other business?
18:15:01 <geraldosimiao> No
18:16:06 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:18:21 <adamw> #endmeeting