16:02:59 <adamw> #startmeeting F34-blocker-review
16:02:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr  5 16:02:59 2021 UTC.
16:02:59 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:02:59 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:03:03 <adamw> #meetingname F34-blocker-review
16:03:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:03:08 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:03:13 <bcotton> .hello2
16:03:14 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:03:16 <adamw> hi folks, who's around for blocker fun?
16:03:53 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:03:54 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com>
16:06:28 <Southern_Gentlem> i was going to say just 3 of us here everything a blocker and go home
16:07:33 <bcotton> proposed #agreed AdamW needs to change his name to Ben for this meeting
16:08:16 <adamw> how'd you figure
16:08:29 <adamw> does seem like attendance is a bit thin, i guess today's a holiday in lots of places
16:08:46 <u9000> wasn't that yesterday?
16:09:16 <adamw> yesterday was a sunday, so, no?
16:09:27 <adamw> er, here, anyway
16:09:29 <adamw> timezones :P
16:09:31 * pwhalen notes it's a holiday for you too adamw :)
16:09:44 <adamw> yeah, but i'm an idiot who proposes meetings too late
16:10:02 <adamw> well, let's start up, anyway, and if we don't seem to have enough voters to achieve anything, i'll shut it back down again
16:10:05 <u9000> what holiday is it?
16:10:12 <adamw> #chair bcotton pwhalen
16:10:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton pwhalen
16:10:14 <adamw> easter monday
16:10:16 <coremodule> .hello2
16:10:17 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:10:22 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:10:23 * coremodule willing to secretarialize.
16:10:26 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:10:31 <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.
16:10:36 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:10:40 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:10:45 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:10:50 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:10:55 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:11:00 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:11:05 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:11:09 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria
16:11:23 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:11:28 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
16:11:28 <adamw> #info 3 Accepted Blockers
16:12:17 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:12:18 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:12:29 <adamw> hi geraldo
16:12:35 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:12:39 <adamw> ok, let's get started
16:12:42 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
16:12:55 <adamw> #topic (1946074) boot failure when LV is a cryptoluks device used as sysroot
16:12:59 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946074
16:13:03 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/321
16:13:06 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, dracut, NEW
16:13:11 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+adamwill, +chrismurphy)
16:13:21 <adamw> so we have +2 already. this does seem a clear violation of the criteria
16:14:06 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
16:14:13 <pwhalen> +1
16:14:14 <u9000> +1
16:14:20 <bcotton> +1
16:14:29 <geraldosimiao> +1
16:14:59 <adamw> alrighty then
16:15:56 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1946074 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this seems like a clear violation of "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration" combined with the requirement that installed systems boot successfully
16:16:00 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:16:18 <bcotton> ack
16:16:34 <pwhalen> ack
16:16:56 <u9000> ack
16:17:26 <adamw> #agreed 1946074 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this seems like a clear violation of "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration" combined with the requirement that installed systems boot successfully
16:17:34 <adamw> #topic (1942443) Login using password failed after upgrade to Fedora 34
16:17:39 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942443
16:17:44 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/317
16:17:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:17:53 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-chrismurphy, -catanzaro)
16:18:02 <adamw> so we've actually discussed this a bit more in IRC than in the bug
16:18:49 <adamw> basically, we know of at least two scenarios in which this happens (where the attempted fix for #1933520 doesn't kick in):
16:19:03 <adamw> 1. long-upgraded installs that started as a release before authselect was default
16:19:21 <adamw> 2. systems where the nsswitch config has been changed outside of authselect for any reason
16:19:56 <adamw> that's how i understand it, anyhow
16:20:15 <adamw> on the one hand i guess probably most people will be ok, on the other hand it's a pretty bad problem if you do hit it.
16:20:40 <Southern_Gentlem> so anyone upgrading from what releases
16:21:34 <adamw> i think 27 and earlier
16:21:42 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker
16:21:49 <geraldosimiao> acording to this, was on F28... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AuthselectAsDefault
16:21:50 <adamw> but it's not just like, if you try and upgrade directly, it fails
16:21:59 <adamw> if you went 27 -> 29 -> 31 -> 33 and you're now going to 34, it fails
16:22:10 <adamw> (again, aiui)
16:22:24 <u9000> what criteria would this meet?
16:22:54 <bcotton> ugh, i don't like this :/
16:23:32 <adamw> the criterion that you can log into the desktop...
16:23:38 <u9000> oh fair
16:23:46 <adamw> but it's conditional on having an affected system. so, awkward case
16:23:58 <pwhalen> bcotton: same, I feel like it could affect a fair number of people
16:24:14 <Southern_Gentlem> well and dont we have one that also we have to be able to upgrade from an ealrier release
16:25:22 <adamw> sorry, that was a cat induced repeat :D
16:25:35 <bcotton> adamscat++
16:25:38 <geraldosimiao> is there a workarround for these cases?
16:25:38 <u9000> Southern_Gentlmen: yeah, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria#Upgrade_requirements
16:25:43 <adamw> there is an upgrade criterion yes
16:25:52 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:26:01 <adamw> but it's phrased as basically 'upgrading from one or two releases ago must work'
16:26:17 <u9000> upgrading from 33 is upgrading from one release ago
16:26:25 <adamw> it doesn't explicitly cover the "long standing install upgraded continuously" scenario (and this is to an extent intentional as we know there are sometimes awkward cases with that)
16:26:40 <u9000> it doesn't explictly exclude it
16:26:55 <adamw> we don't actually want to commit ourselves to saying a system upgraded from FC1 will work perfectly every time
16:28:11 <Southern_Gentlem> i say blocker for now but if it was in a go/nogo meeting i would say wave
16:28:54 <bcotton> i can't decide which side of the fence i fall on. there are good arguments for either decision
16:28:55 <Southern_Gentlem> this is one of those nice to have
16:28:59 <u9000> i think without more information (like ~ how many people it would affect and etc) southern is right
16:29:19 <u9000> s/is right/has a good idea
16:30:05 <Southern_Gentlem> this can come down to user error as well they didnt clean up after each upgrade
16:30:14 <Southern_Gentlem> thus my stand
16:30:19 <bcotton> call me a weak -1 to block and +1 FE if we can come up with a fix to mitigate it
16:30:34 <Southern_Gentlem> i will go with that
16:30:42 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker +1 FE
16:30:48 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
16:31:29 <pwhalen> weak -1 blocker, definite  +1 FE. We should really try to get this fixed
16:31:32 <u9000> fe?
16:31:38 <copperi> +1 fe
16:31:45 <bcotton> u9000: Freeze Exception
16:31:49 <u9000> oh
16:31:56 <u9000> +1 fe
16:32:07 <Southern_Gentlem> "everytime we make something idiot prove, then they make better idiots"
16:32:09 <adamw> i'm more or less in the same place as ben
16:32:19 <adamw> i'd really want this to be fixed but it's hard to say we'd absolutely hard block the release on it
16:33:26 <Southern_Gentlem> so my question does it happen on something install after f27
16:34:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1942443 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is a very close call, but the consensus was that it's just too narrow in scope to see as a release blocker (we believe it affects systems that started as Fedora 27 or earlier, and systems where nsswitch configuration was changed outside of authselect). It is accepted as a freeze exception issue for the usual reason upgrade-related issues are.
16:34:44 <Southern_Gentlem> need a date range of F28 please
16:34:48 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:35:10 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: it can happen to more recently-installed systems if nsswitch.conf got modified outside of authselect's system for any reason
16:35:14 <adamw> (aiui)
16:35:14 <bcotton> ack
16:35:21 <geraldosimiao> ACK
16:35:23 <u9000> ack
16:35:24 <adamw> did that fit one line?
16:35:50 <Southern_Gentlem> if your screen is wide enough
16:36:15 <adamw> heh
16:36:41 <adamw> #agreed 1942443 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is a very close call, but the consensus was that it's just too narrow in scope to see as a release blocker (we believe it affects systems that started as Fedora 27 or earlier, and systems where nsswitch configuration was changed outside of authselect). It is accepted as a freeze exception issue for the usual reason.
16:37:32 <adamw> at a quick look, there is no update on any of the accepted blockers from last week, afaics :|
16:37:37 <adamw> i provided more info on the kde update one, but that's all
16:37:42 <adamw> so, let's move onto:
16:37:46 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:38:17 <u9000> are libreboot issues out of scope?
16:38:21 <adamw> any other blocker/f34-release-related business or concerns?
16:38:22 <pwhalen> adamw: I have a late submission
16:38:31 <adamw> u9000: yeah, i think so, as that's not anything release blocking, is it?
16:38:34 <adamw> pwhal: submit away!
16:38:43 <pwhalen> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946278
16:39:15 <u9000> adamw: i haven't got a chance to test it with f34, but f33 doesn't boot at all on libreboot
16:39:23 <u9000> the live usb does, though
16:39:41 <u9000> (also i just remembered this, which is why i haven't brought it up earlier)
16:40:00 <pwhalen> Just added the blocker flag to it
16:40:41 <adamw> ok, let me run that
16:40:55 <adamw> just a sec
16:40:58 <adamw> plays nuzak
16:41:11 <adamw> urgh, i can't get into blockerbugs. well we'll do it the manual way!
16:41:56 <adamw> #topic (1946278) latest uboot fails to load the dtb
16:42:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946278
16:42:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, uboot-tools, NEW
16:42:44 <adamw> pwhalen: so, do we know if "some systems" includes any on the Blessed List Of Important Ones?
16:43:02 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM#Supported_Hardware_and_Devices
16:43:43 <pwhalen> it does, it will affect quite a few
16:43:56 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:44:16 <pwhalen> +1 here too
16:44:26 <copperi> +1 blocker
16:44:29 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
16:45:08 <u9000> +1
16:45:20 <geraldosimiao> +1
16:45:33 <adamw> +1
16:46:00 <u9000> did i miss anything important
16:46:20 <copperi> u9000: no
16:46:20 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1946278 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations" for affected ARM systems (pwhalen avows that systems on the list of officially supported ARM devices will be affected)
16:46:31 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:46:32 <u9000> copperi: thanks
16:46:33 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:46:33 <pwhalen> heh
16:46:34 <pwhalen> ack
16:46:34 <u9000> ack
16:46:39 <copperi> ack
16:47:29 <bcotton> ack
16:48:06 <adamw> #agreed 1946278 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations" for affected ARM systems (pwhalen avows that systems on the list of officially supported ARM devices will be affected)
16:48:13 <adamw> okay, so back to:
16:48:15 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:48:41 <geraldosimiao> is this strange bug here fix advanced in anyway? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929643
16:49:51 <adamw> that's on the accepted blocker list
16:50:19 <bcotton> adamw: i can secretarialize so you can get back to your holiday
16:50:26 <adamw> thanks for your testing on it, btw
16:50:44 <adamw> so it definitely seems like there are broken cases there, but we still have no input from the developers :(
16:50:54 <adamw> @ben
16:50:55 <adamw> grrr
16:50:55 <adamw> Ben Cotton: coremodule already volunteered
16:51:06 <bcotton> oh, i missed that. cool
16:51:43 <u9000> i've got my libreboot laptop now so i can test if f34 boots
16:51:56 <geraldosimiao> ok, fine. so it's on hold
16:51:59 <u9000> i probably won't finish in a reasonable time for everyone to wait though
16:54:57 <adamw> u9000: like i said, it's a bit out of scope for blocker review, i think, unless any significant systems ship with libreboot preinstalled? iirc there aren't any?
16:55:41 <u9000> there aren't
16:55:58 <u9000> i just thought it would be good to let y'all know
16:57:04 <adamw> sure, but just in #fedora-qa or on the test mailing list will be fine :) thanks
16:57:51 <u9000> oh yeah that's a better place
16:57:52 <u9000> sorry
16:59:37 <adamw> ok, thanks for coming, everybody!
17:00:07 <geraldosimiao> thanks adamw :)
17:00:57 <adamw> #endmeeting