<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:08
!startmeeting F40-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:08
Meeting started at 2024-03-18 16:01:08 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:09
The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:11
!topic Roll Call
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:01:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:18
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:20
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:21
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:01:26
i know i know, i'll stop following you...
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:01:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:49
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:02:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:18
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:03:50
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:51
Jeremy Cline (jcline) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:53
how's everyone doing this fine morning
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:00
(i refuse to accept other timezones and/or climates)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:05:36
It was 70 last week
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:05:37
everyone knows in IT everything and everywhere is UTC
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:05:42
Yesterday I used the fireplaces
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:05:52
I'm doing alright. it's only first monday, after all
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:05:53
I'm here at lunchtime in Brazil
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:06:02
what's for lunch?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:06:25
Beef and rice and beans
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:29
alright, so we're agreed to remove IoT from the distro, close all pbrobinson's accounts and also have his house demolished? ...oh shoot, he's here, everybody hide
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:06:32
😊
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:07:20
I feel so loved! At least you don't knnow where my new house is!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:40
suuuuuure I don't
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:16
oh, but wait, before the bulldozers arrive it'd be great if you could fix that bluetooth bug, it's driving me nuts. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:24
anyhoo, let's get going...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:33
boilerplate alert!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:38
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:41
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:43
!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.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:47
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:51
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:53
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:56
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:59
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:06
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:11
!info for Beta, we have:
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:09:18
that's called karma adamw🤣️
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:32
!info 1 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:36
!info 6 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:38
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:40
!info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:43
!info 8 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:49
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:57
!info 10 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:14
anyone want to secretarialize?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:10:27
can do
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:10:36
neil gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 46 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:10:45
kparal gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 47 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:03
!info František Zatloukal will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:14
alrighty, let's get started with:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!topic Proposed Beta blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:25
!topic (2270030) Fedora Workstation Live ISO uses wrong Plymouth theme (tribar)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:27
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270030
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:30
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1526
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:32
!info Proposed Blocker, fedora-release, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:34
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-kparal)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:46
I tend to be -1 blocker on this, especially for Beta. correct plymouth theme is nice, but not blocking, I don't think
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:55
if it's actually causing anyone boot problems, i'd reconsider
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:02
+1 FE, I guess...
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:12:04
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 48 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:12:19
I didn't see this just now when I tested basic graphics
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:12:50
-1 blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:13:03
-1 Blocker, +1 FE (if it is an issue at all in the end)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:13:05
+1 FinalFE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:14:32
the spinner is there, lruzicka is just confused 😉
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:14:46
-1 betablocker
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:14:46
Yeah, I'm -1 blocker, +1 FE assuming it's reproducible which it sounds like it isn't
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:14:48
FinalBlocker -1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:14:58
er
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:01
BetaBlocker -1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:18
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:14
proposed !agreed 2270030 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a beta blocker as we can't find any criterion it violates and it appears to be a merely cosmetic issue. It's accepted as an FE if it proves to be a reproducible bug with a clear and safe fix
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:17:26
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:17:27
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:17:37
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:17:45
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:48
!agreed 2270030 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a beta blocker as we can't find any criterion it violates and it appears to be a merely cosmetic issue. It's accepted as an FE if it proves to be a reproducible bug with a clear and safe fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:57
ok, moving on to:
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:18:03
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:03
!topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:13
!topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 in Fedora 40 Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:16
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267754
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:19
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1493
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:22
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, MODIFIED, depends on other bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:24
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+4,0,-2) (+ngompa, +geraldosimiao, +adamwill, +frantisekz, -nielsenb, -lruzicka)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:43
so...I *mostly* proposed this in the hopes of doing a quickie candidate yesterday, but we didn't do that in the end
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:52
still, i guess it's worth considering for a compose today
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:04
(i'm kinda agitating to do a compose today, more on that later)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:19:22
what about that openqa-related blocker that was present there previously, is that fixed?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:19:29
yeah, that was fixed afaik
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:19:57
I am +1 FE (ofc, the newer, the better, or how was that?)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:20:26
I kinda feel like it has enough fixes for other issues, we might as well pull it in at this point
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:27
Kamil Páral: yes, mutter 46 final reverted the removal of xevent filters
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:20:29
we have 4 mutter crashes proposed for Final, does this fix any of those?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:46
good question. no idea, off the top of my head
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:51
but it might create exciting new ones!
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:21:13
I'm +0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:26
at least one of them is, according to jadahl - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268998#c20
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:52
probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269545 too, if https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/3337 made 36.0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:56
probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show\_bug.cgi?id=2269545 too, if https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/3337 made 46.0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:09
probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show\_bug.cgi?id=2269545 too, if https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/3646 made 46.0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:12
i will check on that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:51
it looks like it did. also looks like quite a big change to have YOLOed into final, but hey
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:23:29
I mean, if we include it in a compose, we can revert it in a new one just fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:36
i've marked the update as fixing those two
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:23:42
I feel like they did a lot of big changes really late in their cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:49
František Zatloukal: sure, it's just a question of timing - enough time to test and find a bug, enough time to revert and compose again
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:56
looks like it fixes 2265402 too...
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:25:12
whether it's tested now in beta or post beta things still need to get fixed so I feel it would be better to get it in beta for wider testing and more timne before GA
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:25:28
That's kinda where I'm at too
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:25:38
It fixes some stuff, almost certainly breaks some others
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:25:51
But maybe we can CommonBugs any new breakage...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:07
As opposed to day 0 carnage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:08
and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268149 ... so nearly all of them
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:26:43
looks like a good argument to include it, then
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:48
BetaFE +1
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:27:15
Beta FE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:00
proposed !agreed 2267754 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds it fixes a large number of crashers and other bugs, it has solid feedback so far, and seems to be passing openQA's distribution tests in Rawhide. We intend to pull it into a candidate compose (assuming there is another) without pushing it stable first, so it can easily be reverted if necessary
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:29:08
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:29:16
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:29:25
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:59
!agreed 2267754 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds it fixes a large number of crashers and other bugs, it has solid feedback so far, and seems to be passing openQA's distribution tests in Rawhide. We intend to pull it into a candidate compose (assuming there is another) without pushing it stable first, so it can easily be reverted if necessary
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:00
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:20
!topic (2270070) There's no F40 LXQT iso
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:23
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270070
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:27
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1527
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:30
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:33
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:49
we usually track this via failed-composes tickets, but there's nothing wrong with having a bug report, and accepting an FE could be useful if any changes needed to fix this require one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:58
so i'm +1 FE, getting image builds fixed is always good
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:26
I agree
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:32
BetaFE +1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:32:10
yeah. betafe+1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:32:10
BetaFE +1
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:33:20
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:05
proposed !agreed 2270070 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as we usually accept FEs to fix non-blocking image builds, of course this cannot be fixed outside of the freeze and it is a significant benefit to make sure the image is present in Beta
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:35:16
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:35:25
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:35:29
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:35:39
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:35:52
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:05
!agreed 2270070 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as we usually accept FEs to fix non-blocking image builds, of course this cannot be fixed outside of the freeze and it is a significant benefit to make sure the image is present in Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:10
sorry, was proposing a new FE on the side...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:19
!topic (2270138) Kiwi-built container base image is missing gzip and sudo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:22
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270138
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:25
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1529
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:28
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kiwi, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:36
thanks to Jeremy Cline for running the diff
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:53
i'm definitely +1 FE to get the contents more in line
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:38:01
+1 FE
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:38:13
BetaFE +1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:38:28
BetaFE +1
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:38:41
Yeah I feel pretty confident this won't cause problems (famous last words) so BetaFE +1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:38:46
+1 fe
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:39:01
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:10
okay, #agreed it's all jcline's fault when things blow up
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:39:22
this remembers me the RMS interjection meme
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:55
proposed !agreed 2270138 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly desirable for the Kiwi images to contain everything we intended and which was in the ImageFactory images, and the lack of gzip especially is known to screw up at least one real-world use case
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:40:03
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:40:05
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:40:06
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:40:31
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:53
!agreed 2270138 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly desirable for the Kiwi images to contain everything we intended and which was in the ImageFactory images, and the lack of gzip especially is known to screw up at least one real-world use case
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:00
!topic (2269992) sdubby instead of grubby is installed by default
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:02
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269992
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:05
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1525
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:08
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sdubby, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:09
so this one's fun
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:41:26
It got me confused
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:30
one person mentions it, I nominate the bug as an FE, and suddenly everyone shows up saying how they noticed it months ago and worked around it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:30
:P
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:20
i'm definitely +1 FE, anyway. it almost *feels* blocker-y, but in practice, surprisingly little stuff doesn't work if you just...don't have grubby, these days. I think since the BLS transition, default usage doesn't really run through it any more
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:32
but it's definitely still the way you're meant to do customizations and stuff, I think
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:42:57
BetaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:43:09
BetaFE +1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:43:12
+1 fe
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:43:14
For a return to the status quo
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:43:17
+1 fe
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:43:33
+1 FE
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:43:39
I think this impacts too if one want install sd-boot using everything iso
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:43:47
and a full DE
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:43:51
like KDE plasma
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:08
geraldosimiao: well, sdubby is what you *want* if you want to use sdboot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:16
so i don't think this causes any *problems* for sdboot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:24
it's more the other way around, sdboot path causing problems for default path...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:24
yeah, but anaconda shows erros
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:31
conflict with grubby
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:32
oh, it doeS?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:40
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:43
well, that sounds like a different thing
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:49
must open a ticket for that, sorry
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:53
i'm not intending to remove the *conflict* with grubby, i believe that's valid
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:02
but yeah, if the sdboot path has issues, please do file a bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:53
proposed !agreed 2269992 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly not intended behaviour and cannot be fixed with a post-release update, we want Beta installs to get grubby not sdubby unless they're using inst.sdboot
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:45:53
yeah, but anaconda shows errors
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:46:01
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:46:07
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:46:10
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:17
!agreed 2269992 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly not intended behaviour and cannot be fixed with a post-release update, we want Beta installs to get grubby not sdubby unless they're using inst.sdboot
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:17
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:29
my hobby: accepting things just before kparal has time to ack them
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:46:51
it's quite the skill, truthfully
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:59
didn't make it this time, though. At least on my end.
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:47:08
This is community maintained feature https://anaconda-installer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#systemd-boot-as-a-bootloader
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:47:22
Just FYI
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:48
my end is the only truth
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:02
jkonecny: yeah, i wasn't going to dump it on you
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:13
i was gonna dump it on...whoever owns that feature, i forget. or neal, just cos. :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:47
!topic (2270154) Partially revert bootupd support for Atomic desktops (again)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:52
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270154
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:48:55
Jeremy Linton is the owner
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:56
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:12
jkonecny: right, i don't know why i forgot that when i keep pinging him this morning. hah.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:25
so, this was filed at the request of travier
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:43
i guess if he thinks it's best to rip this back out, i'm not opposed...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:50:15
we do know the old way works, so...eh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:50:19
and the images aren't release blocking
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:50:32
+1 FE
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:51:05
non blocking stuff, let developers and mainst do whatever they'd want I guess
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:51:20
BetaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:51:28
BetaFE +1
<@jkonecny:fedora.im>
16:52:24
+1 anything. I'm worried about the proper fix in Anaconda could raise more issues. So having it in Rawhide first seems better to me.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:12
proposed !agreed 2270154 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds that we know the old way works, and the atomic desktop images are not blocking, so we're willing to defer to the maintainer's idea of what's best here since the change is limited to the atomic desktop definitions
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:17
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:53:20
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:24
(didn't even read it)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:53:39
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:53:41
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:53:43
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:54:06
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:11
just a minute, let me patch the proposal so i can accept it before kamil acks
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:54:17
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:54:25
*phew* got mine in :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:27
!agreed 2270154 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds that we know the old way works, and the atomic desktop images are not blocking, so we're willing to defer to the maintainer's idea of what's best here since the change is limited to the atomic desktop definitions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:58
let's move on quickly to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:05
!topic Accepted Beta blocker status review
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:55:09
we can allways react in matrix room style
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:16
as a reminder, we are not voting on these (unless we specifically decide to revote one), just checking the status
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:29
!topic (2267968) Raspberry Pi 400 shows nothing on screen when booting Fedora 40 images (even before grub)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:32
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267968
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:35
!info Accepted Blocker, bcm283x-firmware, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:40
Peter Robinson: any news on this one?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:00
we did the candidates on the basis that folks might want to vote to waive this as found-too-late or not-reasonably-fixable, but if we can fix it that'd be great
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:56:43
(I believe this still stands as a good waiving candidate as Pi 400 wasn't explicitly marked as blocking/supported before this cycle began)
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:57:03
so I had focused on the u-boot bug, I have had some debug into this
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:57:14
I have also filed a bug upstream
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:57:41
I had started looking at it again this morning, I have something to try, but I've not finished it with other priorities
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
16:58:52
I can get it to boot enabling some early debug, which kind of says to me it's a clocking issue in teh firmware, I may consider that a work around to get us through beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:00
could you do an attempt at that today? i'd really like to pull together another compose attempt tonight
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:06
would trying to change that potentially break anything else?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:00:22
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:22
oh, and is just downgrading the firmware another possibility? or do we need the newer version to fix other things?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:00:24
Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:01:13
a try on which bit?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:35
the clocking change
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:49
or, i guess, just enabling the early debug in the official build, if that's what you meant?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:02:01
we need the newer FW for other things, I tend not to upgrade it unless needed because of regressions elsewhere
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:06
rgr
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:02:47
I am currently writing out an RPiOS image to verify some bits and a theory, and then depending on that I will look futher
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:31
rgr. basically, if you can come up with something today that you figure has a shot at fixing this and not *too* much risk of breaking anything else critical, that'd be awesome
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:37
if not, i agree with frantisek that it's a reasonable waiver candidate
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:03:41
I still have a corner case bug in the u-boot fix that I am trying to nail down that is annoying me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:47
!info Peter Robinson is working on this one and has some avenues of investigation, we will see what he comes up with
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:17
!info all other regular blockers are addressed in Beta-1.7. some that are in ON_QA could actually be marked VERIFIED, I will do that in a bit
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:22
!topic (2242759) dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date that pre-dates gpg key
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:25
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242759
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:27
!info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:36
this one is an accepted previous release blocker that's just been kinda hanging around
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:53
we accepted it last cycle but waived it to this cycle on the endearingly optimistic basis we'd have figured out something to do about it by now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:10
well, thanks, Past Us. here we are!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:26
if nobody actually has a cunning idea to fix this bug, i think i'm kinda of the opinion we should revote it to not-a-blocker-because-we-can't-fix-the-damn thing, and just document it as best we can
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:07:28
Note that is also impacts regular offline updates as well
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:07:31
As I discovered
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:07:34
let's move that to the future us, could we? (my stance to life and all...) :D
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:54
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to pbrobinson. They now have 116 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:08:02
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:05
hey neal
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:41
Yo
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:09:18
o/
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:09:23
just for the records, we should celebrate the new signed shim :)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:09:35
farribeiro gave a cookie to pbrobinson. They now have 117 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:09:44
neil gave a cookie to pbrobinson. They now have 118 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:10:44
Signed?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:11:14
yes!
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:11:23
I'm super not a fan of waiving this bug again, but I don't have any brilliant fix ideas, so I really don't know what else we can do
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:11:26
Oh my good!
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:11:51
yep !
```
╰─⊙ pesign -S -i fedora/boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI
---------------------------------------------
certificate address is 0x7f1edb3fd6d0
Content was not encrypted.
Content is detached; signature cannot be verified.
The signer's common name is Microsoft Windows UEFI Driver Publisher
No signer email address.
No signing time included.
There were certs or crls included.
---------------------------------------------
```
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:37
@farribeiro:matrix.org: yes, and it's in Beta-1.7 already
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:14
so...what do people want to do about this? does anyone support voting it not-a-blocker, or do we want to wait to the go/no-go and consider waiving it?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:13:25
I waited too long to this "no"-waive
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:14:05
I waited too long to this "no-waive"
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:14:06
I mean, I would prefer to leave it as a blocker, and waive at least 40 Beta
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:14:19
it's bad enough, breaks offline updates and upgrades on supported HW
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:14:24
I agree, pragmatically I want it to stand as a blocker, but also be waived
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:29
okay
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:32
let's just note it, then
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:14:32
So it doesn't lose it's mystical power
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:14:43
So it doesn't lose its mystical power
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:14:49
it may stay that way longer than shim, we'll see :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:13
!info we note that this is sadly still outstanding, we were hoping to have figured out some kind of fix during this cycle but we clearly didn't. We believe it should remain as a blocker for now, but expect to consider waiving it again at the go/no-go meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:41
okay, so that's all for beta, i believe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:43
moving on to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:46
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:10
proposal in the interests of time: let's skip the mutter ones that should be fixed by the 46.0 update for now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:18
since we can assume they'll get closed before we really have to worry about blocker status
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:20
sound good?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:16:28
Sure
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:16:38
yep
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:16:39
ok
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:16:45
yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:47
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:49
!topic (2269361) Can't login to Cockpit web interface as root
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:16:50
yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:53
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269361
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:56
!info Proposed Blocker, cockpit, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:11
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-adamwill, -sgallagh)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:18
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-adamwill, -nielsenb)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:17:21
oh.. i'd noticed that on RHEL 9 a few weeks ago and thought it was just some new "feature" :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:26
it is a feature, yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:45
it just surprised kparal, and there is I guess an argument against the feature, but...it was an intentional change
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:18:13
glad the message is fixed. that one was definitely confusing.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:28
Stephen Gallagher: around? i believe it was you who wanted to argue in favor of this one
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:19:22
Semi-here, yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:31
i'm willing to buy the argument that we should maybe have anaconda allow this when you install without an admin user, or something, but i don't think i buy it as a blocker
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:19:42
on one hand its a feature but we should not produce installation without working cockpit
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:20:01
Definitely not a beta blocker (as I noted when I voted -1 for that)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:01
i acknowledge the criterion proposal as valid, but as it's a conditional violation the determinate is subjective and my subjective opinion is not-blocker :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:12
i acknowledge the criterion proposal as valid, but as it's a conditional violation the decision is subjective and my subjective opinion is not-blocker :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:19
Stephen Gallagher: we're on final blocker now
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:20:59
so its a new feature request?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:21:06
This wouldn't pass muster for the "last blocker at Go/No-Go", so I guess -1 FinalBlocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:18
jkonecny: wdyt about having anaconda tweak the cockpit config here like it does the ssh config?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:21:28
But I really dislike the idea that we let you create a system you cannot log into
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:30
geraldosimiao: i would say the concepts get a bit fuzzy :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:52
Stephen Gallagher: i mean, technically you *can* log into it, right? via direct ssh. you just can't get into it via cockpit.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:57
i guess if you're not exposing the ssh port...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:22:08
adamw: Not if you didn't check that box for SSH...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:22:39
If you create only a root user, you need physical access to get in at all.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:04
oh, yeah. well...i mean...i guess that was also the case before cockpit
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:23:07
Which we do not warn about either.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:23:39
I think this is -1 in all ways by now
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:23:45
adamw: Which is why the checkbox for SSH exists :)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:24:15
At least the existence of that checkbox provides a hint that if you don't click it, you might be locked out
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:19
-1 FinalBlocker, maybe a FinalFE
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:25:14
Yeah, I wouldn't block on this if push came to shove
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:25:17
FinalBlocker -1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:25:33
Anyway, I agree that this wouldn't block the actual Go decision, which means it's not a blocker.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:48
okay, seems like we have a consensus
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:59
but i definitely agree you've sufficiently argued that it's a situation we should fix somehow, sgallagh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:09
proposed !agreed 2269361 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as we all agree it can be argued as a conditional violation of the criteria, but our subjective opinion (as is required for conditional violations) is that it's not a serious enough case to count as a blocker. it has been the case for several releases without major complaints
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:27:32
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:27:44
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:27:51
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:27:56
Ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:28:02
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:28:14
Ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:28:16
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:28:27
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:34
!agreed 2269361 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as we all agree it can be argued as a conditional violation of the criteria, but our subjective opinion (as is required for conditional violations) is that it's not a serious enough case to count as a blocker. it has been the case for several releases without major complaints
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:44
!topic (2268583) [abrt] gnome-software: gtk_widget_get_parent_muxer.constprop.0(): gnome-software killed by SIGSEGV
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:46
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268583
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:49
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1513
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:53
!info Proposed Blocker, gtk4, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:57
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+catanzaro)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:00
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,1,-0) (+asciiwolf, +catanzaro, nielsenb)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:30:08
Hopefully fixed by the new pull?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:13
no...it wouldn't be
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:20
actually that's interesting, because i hadn't thought about this complication
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:30:24
Dangit
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:38
everyone testing the 46.0 update to gnome-shell/mutter is probably testing it *on top of the 46-rc megaupdate*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:50
but if we pull the 46.0 gnome-shell update we will be pulling it on top of 46-beta everything else
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:04
well...we could also pull the rc megaupdate as part of that...maybe we should...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:32:33
Makes sense to me
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:32:42
In a "living dangerously" kind of way
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:32:44
should we circle back to 2267754 and clarify our decision there?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:44
!info discussion on this bug indicated that our decision on 2267554 was not 100% clear, so we are gonna circle back to that temporarily
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:50
!topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 in Fedora 40 Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:34
coming back to this: we didn't make it clear whether we were sanctioning the inclusion of https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1ed0b13d87 *only* (that's the 46.0 update for gnome-shell/mutter), or also sanctioning the pull of https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a74ce3e5c4 (that's the 46.0-rc update for all other GNOME components)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:10
do we intend to include both, or only one? I guess I'd tend to include both, as that's what people will have been testing from updates-testing. only including the RC one is not viable because of the keyboard layout issue.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:35:25
I would go with both
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:35:35
Both
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:35:36
yep, me to
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:36:09
both
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:36:13
agreed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:15
ok
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:36:19
both
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:36:30
for push reasons, shall I create a separate bz as a fe for the rest of the stack?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:36:40
wait, i'll change mine to : neither, just to be difficult
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:36:40
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:47
!agreed we clarify that the FE granted to this bug intends to cover the inclusion of both https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a74ce3e5c4 and https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1ed0b13d87
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:57
František Zatloukal: not necessary, we can just mark both updates as fixing the bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:04
blockerbugs handles that fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:07
we do it quite a lot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:02
ok, back to the gtk on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:12
!info returning to the proposed Final blocker bug we were previously discussing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:22
!topic (2268583) [abrt] gnome-software: gtk_widget_get_parent_muxer.constprop.0(): gnome-software killed by SIGSEGV
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:44
!info as this will likely be fixed by the Beta FE now, let's skip it for time reasons
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:48
aaand moving on!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:39:05
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:39:14
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:39:26
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:39:30
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:39:50
😁 I think I ack without need LOL
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:39:57
😁😁
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:39:57
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:06
hehe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:12
sorry, just doing the bz bureaucracy
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:15
next bug coming in a sec
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:40:25
we're just keeping the TCP session alive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:27
!topic (2267951) [abrt] gnome-shell: gnome-shell killed by SIGBUS
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:30
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267951
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:34
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1496
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:36
!info Proposed Blocker, mutter, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:39
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,1,-1) (+lruzicka, geraldosimiao, -nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:15
so, this one is *not* fixed in 46.0 final I believe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:48
do we think it's bad enough to block on?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:42:26
it seems like so far it only crashes lruzicka's PC, so it's all about our personal feelings about lruzicka ;)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:42:55
looking at bz there is no reproducer :/
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:43:21
I like lruzicka but I dont like his computer, can we vote on new computer for him?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:24
from the upstream PR jadahl has an idea what's going on, but it may not be fixable in mutter...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:43:30
I do worry it's going to be on of those deals where if we don't block on it, it'll turn out it happens to everybody, all the time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:32
jednorozec: only if you're paying
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:43:37
he was using chromium... one more motiv to use only FF
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:43:41
:)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:43:42
hum
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:43:53
But I'm still a soft -1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:44:26
Doesn't appear super widespread right now, and a fix can just be pulled in as a regular update
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:57
Brandon Nielsen: well...we have quite a lot of people running f40 at this point and no other reporters afaict
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:02
i haven't hit it, but then i don't use chromium
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:45:02
Right, no mercy for Chromium or Java users
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:11
unfortunately the FAF link doesn't work
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:15
so i can't see offhand if we have any dupes in FAF
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:06
on the whole i think i'm -1 for now, would revote if we got indications more people hit this
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:46:11
Also Chromium based?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:46:31
(eg. Chrome like I am using? 😅😅)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:46:39
Right
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:46:50
elinks only
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:46:55
-1 until there is reproducer
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:47:26
FinalBlocker -1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:45
ok, I'll set on FinalBlocker -1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:48:02
-1 FB
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:09
proposed !agreed 2267951 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as there seems to be no indication anyone but lruzicka has hit it yet, so it's too narrow in scope to block the release. But as Shell crashers are very serious, we will reconsider this if we see any indication anyone else is running into it
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:48:15
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:48:18
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:48:21
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:48:23
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:31
!agreed 2267951 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as there seems to be no indication anyone but lruzicka has hit it yet, so it's too narrow in scope to block the release. But as Shell crashers are very serious, we will reconsider this if we see any indication anyone else is running into it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:48:42
we may actually get data once the Beta is out that indicates one way or another
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:43
!topic (2266050) [abrt] plasma-workspace-libs: _execute_child(): subprocess.py:1953:_execute_child:FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'qtpaths'
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:48:44
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:46
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266050
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:50
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1481
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:52
Conan Kudo: indeed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:55
!info Proposed Blocker, plasma-workspace, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:58
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +lruzicka, +geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:10
so this has +3 but i did wanna just bring it up as i'm not sure anyone's *reproduced* it yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:22
i meant to do a kde install here and see, didn't get to it yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:40
in theory i'd be +1, though, if it really is happening out of the box on a clean kde install and generating a notification
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:16
it shouldn't happen on clean installs, only upgrades
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:50:31
Ah, I never tried an upgrade
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:50:49
and is only HDR Conan Kudo ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:56
no
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:02
the failed service is about configuration migration
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:14
I think HDR is a coincidence
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:51:16
I'm on a F40 KDE upgraded system
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:51:36
ah, okay
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:51:40
that would explain why openqa doesn't see it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:40
the part that is dying here is the stuff that updates the configuration from older Plasma releases to the current one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:51:45
that makes it a bit more ambiguously blocker-y for me...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:57
so it's actually quite serious, but difficult to capture in QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:52:01
well, it probably *happens* in openqa, but we don't check for notifications in the upgrade tests
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:52:15
Conan Kudo: oh, so the crash does have real effects?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:52:24
what config is it that's not getting migrated?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:29
but he said somthing different "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266050#c10"
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:37
1. Downlod fedora-kde-live-x86_64-40-20240303.n.1.iso image
2. Installed normally on real hardware not on Virtual Machine.
3. After installation finished just rebooted normally and got this bug on first login.
Also there is a static noise screen for a moment or two before login scrren appears.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:52:48
well, in this case, if a user is using a particular plugin that needs migrating and it doesn't migrate, part of the desktop can be broken
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:12
hum, well that sounds bad
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:53:23
hmm, I wonder if it it's running it also to populate initial configs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:29
i kinda get a blockery...*vibe*...from this bug, but the details just feel fuzzy :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:53:49
but regardless, the fault means that part of the configuration won't be correctly populated
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:54
still, on the whole i think i'd be cool with accepting it as a blocker for now, we can always reconsider later if circumstances warrant
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:08
any other votes?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:54:13
but I don't know how severe this case is because it depends on how much config population is stops
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:54:17
+1 FB
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:54:30
but I don't know how severe this case is because it depends on how much config population it stops
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:54:38
+1 FB
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:54:41
+1 FB
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:54:51
Now that I understand it better, I'm okay changing my vote
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:54:53
FinalBlocker +1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:55:00
TY for clarifying Conan Kudo
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:55:17
likely we need to also forward this on to KDE upstream
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:55:36
because I think the reason for the failure is that we're not detecting the correct binary names for Qt CLI tools
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:10
proposed !agreed 2266050 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - the details of this don't seem to be all nailed down yet, but it definitely seems concerning enough in a couple of ways to accept as a blocker for now: the crash notification may be a violation of the final criterion requiring no crash notifications on first boot if it's confirmed to affect clean installs, and the crash indicates that some configuration migration is failing on upgrades which could cause more serious consequences also
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:56:20
ack.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:56:24
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:56:27
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:56:28
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:56:29
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:39
!agreed 2266050 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - the details of this don't seem to be all nailed down yet, but it definitely seems concerning enough in a couple of ways to accept as a blocker for now: the crash notification may be a violation of the final criterion requiring no crash notifications on first boot if it's confirmed to affect clean installs, and the crash indicates that some configuration migration is failing on upgrades which could cause more serious consequences also
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:46
!topic (2269286) Snapshot displays only solid pink image
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:48
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269286
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:51
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1517
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:54
!info Proposed Blocker, snapshot, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:57
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:10
oh, i think the megaupdate would fix this? let's see if it's included
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:24
oh, no, it isn't.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:59:01
i'm a bit confused that mcatanzaro says this is fixed in snapshot 46, but mclasen says it needs a new gstreamer...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:59:33
anyhow, on the whole i'd say this fails "must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test", so i'm gonna say +1 blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:00:08
+1 FB
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:00:11
It starts, and it functions, you just can't check your hair before you start recording... :D
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:00:12
FB +1, yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:00:45
the strange thing is: the image is captured
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:00
the file is created accondingly and is fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:03
it's not really *that* strange given (boring technical details about how video capture works)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:01:04
+1 FB
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:16
but the visual confirmation at the applet only shows ping
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:22
but the visual confirmation at the applet only shows pink
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:01:29
I am not sure if the fix is easily backportable, it looks like it'll require a major gstreamer bump
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:01:39
as f40 is on an older branch
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:39
the file is created accordingly and is fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:50
proposed !agreed 2269286 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the requirement for Workstation that all preinstalled apps must "start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test" - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:02:00
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:02:03
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:02:04
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:06
František Zatloukal: we can waive it as not-practically-fixable if necessary, i guess...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:15
or just remove the app (and replace it with the old thing, or something)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:02:15
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:02:17
ack then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:25
!agreed 2269286 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the requirement for Workstation that all preinstalled apps must "start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test" - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:40
okay, we're slightly over time but there's just one more wafer-thin bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:44
!topic (2269343) After update wireplumber to 0.4.90-1.fc41 version only headset mic is working when I connect bluetooth headset
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:47
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269343
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:49
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1518
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:52
!info Proposed Blocker, wireplumber, NEW
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:02:52
the rawhide bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:55
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:46
well, it's at least potentially an f40 bug too, 0.4.90 was submitted to f40 and 0.5.0 is pending for it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:49
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d3a88f9d74
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:52
but indeed it's not in stable yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:04:04
we could i guess ask the reporter to test with 0.5.0 and punt...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:54
proposed !agreed 2269343 - punt (delay decision) - the affected wireplumber is not stable for F40 yet, and 0.5.0 has come out in the mean time. let's punt on this one and ask the reporter to test with 0.5.0. if 0.5.0 is broken, and it gets pushed stable for F40, then we can make a decision on it...
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:05:57
yeah, sounds fine
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:05:58
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:06:08
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:06:22
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:32
!agreed 2269343 - punt (delay decision) - the affected wireplumber is not stable for F40 yet, and 0.5.0 has come out in the mean time. let's punt on this one and ask the reporter to test with 0.5.0. if 0.5.0 is broken, and it gets pushed stable for F40, then we can make a decision on it...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:37
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:48
so, real quick: I am kinda inclined to do another candidate even if peter can't come up with a pi 400 fix
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:06:53
Open floor!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:54
there's just a *lot* of FE stuff it would be nice to get in
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:06:58
can anyone help the SOAS dev?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:07:04
Do it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:06
@farribeiro:matrix.org: don't fall in!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:07:06
please?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:10
does anyone hate this plan?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:17
geraldosimiao: i can try and take a look if i get time...
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:07:22
LoL
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:26
but we *do* have a workaround for that bug at least, so it's not been super high priority for me
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:07:29
fyi, secretary work is done (but the last punt, will handle that in a bit), so bba templates should be up2date for push requests and other work
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:35
thanks František Zatloukal !
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:39
František Zatloukal++
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:47
(is that how you do that? i dunno)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:08:04
probably no, good ol irc... :D
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:08:05
you can use !cookie František Zatloukal i think -- or just add a cookie emji :D
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:08:10
just give a cookie at matrix
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:08:20
or maybe !cookie give? 🤔
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:32
just go buy yourself a cookie, franta :D
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:08:33
Yes... Cookie give Works
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:34
any other thoughts?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:08:35
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F39 timeframe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:49
while I go get my tennis kit on :P
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:08:57
no other thoughs now
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:09:07
i try to think as little as possible
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:35
farribeiro gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 49 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:17
excellent plan
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:24
okay, thanks for coming out, everyone
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:13:27
whe should give us cookies more often
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:13:38
thanks for running the show adamw !
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:13:41
I'm still hungry :)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:13:48
yep, thanks adamw and all!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:53
i'm out for a couple of hours, then will try and pull together a new compose request
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:14:00
neil gave a cookie to adamwill. They now have 240 cookies, 11 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:14:12
!endmeeting