2024-09-03 16:00:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F41-blocker-review
2024-09-03 16:00:43 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-09-03 16:00:42 UTC
2024-09-03 16:00:43 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F41-blocker-review'
2024-09-03 16:00:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-09-03 16:00:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who's around for blocker fun, folks?
2024-09-03 16:00:56 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-03 16:01:02 <@jnsamyak:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-03 16:01:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2024-09-03 16:01:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
2024-09-03 16:01:07 <@jnsamyak:matrix.org> double meeting
2024-09-03 16:01:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-03 16:01:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2024-09-03 16:01:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-03 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2024-09-03 16:01:56 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-03 16:01:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
2024-09-03 16:02:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi everyone
2024-09-03 16:03:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> boilerplate time!
2024-09-03 16:03:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-09-03 16:03:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-03 16:03:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-09-03 16:03:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-09-03 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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.
2024-09-03 16:03:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-09-03 16:03:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-09-03 16:03:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-09-03 16:03:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-09-03 16:03:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-09-03 16:03:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-09-03 16:03:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-09-03 16:03:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-09-03 16:04:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Beta, we have 2 proposed blockers and 2 proposed FEs
2024-09-03 16:04:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info no proposals for Final as of now
2024-09-03 16:04:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2024-09-03 16:04:27 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I can
2024-09-03 16:04:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info František Zatloukal will secretarialize
2024-09-03 16:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get going with:
2024-09-03 16:04:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta blockers
2024-09-03 16:04:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2308952) The updates-testing repo isn't enabled by default
2024-09-03 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2308952
2024-09-03 16:05:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1633
2024-09-03 16:05:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, fedora-repos, NEW
2024-09-03 16:05:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,2,-0) (+lruzicka, +pbrobinson, kparal, nielsenb)
2024-09-03 16:05:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+adamwill)
2024-09-03 16:05:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, FE it is if we have no crits for it
2024-09-03 16:05:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so there isn't actually any criterion for this, so i just voted FE for it. it's accepted as an FE
2024-09-03 16:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for beta we say the system must be capable of installing updates
2024-09-03 16:05:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> I don't feel that strongly about this as Stephen does
2024-09-03 16:06:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which i think is actually sufficient - in theory we could just fix this with an update after beta went out
2024-09-03 16:06:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I expect fesco will fast-track a blocker criterion for this today
2024-09-03 16:06:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there's a ticket for it now
2024-09-03 16:06:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> I actually this we don't need a criterion for this. But anyway, at this moment, I think just FE exception is fine.
2024-09-03 16:06:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !fesco 3266
2024-09-03 16:06:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 hours ago by sgallagh
2024-09-03 16:06:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3266** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3266):**Fedora 41 Beta Blocker: require the updates-testing repository to be active**
2024-09-03 16:06:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2024-09-03 16:06:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2024-09-03 16:06:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 31 minutes ago
2024-09-03 16:07:06 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FE feels sufficient to me
2024-09-03 16:07:14 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2024-09-03 16:07:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2024-09-03 16:07:34 <@kparal:matrix.org> I actually think we don't need a criterion for this. But anyway, at this moment, I think just FE exception is fine.
2024-09-03 16:08:51 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so... we can punt blocker decision/wait for fesco, and I can mark it as acceptedblocker once they make the decision?
2024-09-03 16:10:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can punt it, sure
2024-09-03 16:11:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2308952 - punt (delay decision) - as this is already accepted as an FE and the blocker status appears to be subject to FESCo jumping all over it, we'll delay the decision on blocker status while that happens. in any case the bug will shortly be fixed.
2024-09-03 16:12:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:12:16 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:12:18 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:12:32 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> "FESCo jumping all over it" 🤣
2024-09-03 16:12:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:12:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:12:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2308952 - punt (delay decision) - as this is already accepted as an FE and the blocker status appears to be subject to FESCo jumping all over it, we'll delay the decision on blocker status while that happens. in any case the bug will shortly be fixed.
2024-09-03 16:13:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2309337) Synchronous Exception on boot
2024-09-03 16:13:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309337
2024-09-03 16:13:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1637
2024-09-03 16:13:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
2024-09-03 16:13:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -ngompa)
2024-09-03 16:13:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i could've -1ed this and skipped it at the meeting, but left it on the agenda in case Peter Robinson has any input
2024-09-03 16:14:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> afaics the affected system isn't on any supported HW lists, and we don't have reports of this on any supported system
2024-09-03 16:14:27 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> which ones?
2024-09-03 16:14:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> https://www.ipi.wiki/pages/ampere-altra-developer-platform
2024-09-03 16:15:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> apparently that system ^
2024-09-03 16:15:24 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> so the ampere platforms are part of the general SystemReady ServerReady platforms we support
2024-09-03 16:15:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I didn't even know anyone had one
2024-09-03 16:15:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> they're freakishly expensive
2024-09-03 16:15:55 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> and infra have a bunch, it looks like the original grub2.12-1 build works, but it regressed in later builds
2024-09-03 16:16:25 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> and I've not looked closely at the actrual issue but it could end up being an issue on other platforms like ones in Fedora infra
2024-09-03 16:16:31 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yeah, my vote actually changes given that it should be "SystemReady"
2024-09-03 16:16:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> same
2024-09-03 16:16:47 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> a LOT of people at arm run Fedora on them as workstations for example
2024-09-03 16:17:05 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ...are they hiring...?
2024-09-03 16:17:17 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> yes
2024-09-03 16:17:29 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> depends on your skillset
2024-09-03 16:17:36 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Cooler than any workstation I've been issued
2024-09-03 16:18:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it'd better be, it's liquid-cooled!
2024-09-03 16:18:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> $2600, yikes
2024-09-03 16:18:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Hi! 
2024-09-03 16:18:32 <@humaton:fedora.im> compared to similar systems 2600 is not that much
2024-09-03 16:18:42 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> the concern I would have here is what other ServerReady platforms could be affected
2024-09-03 16:18:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, if we want to block on this hw, it should be added to whichever list of blocking arm hw we're treating as canonical rn
2024-09-03 16:18:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-03 16:18:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2024-09-03 16:19:02 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Sorry for being so late 
2024-09-03 16:19:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the criteria link to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Supported_Platforms
2024-09-03 16:19:12 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> "SystemReady" is already listed as supported on the wiki page I think is canonical
2024-09-03 16:19:15 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> adamwwell ServerReady is a general category we already block on
2024-09-03 16:19:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which was last revised 2020, according to its header
2024-09-03 16:19:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Robinson: what page says that?
2024-09-03 16:19:30 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM#Supported_Hardware_and_Devices
2024-09-03 16:19:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, the *other* one.
2024-09-03 16:19:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we block on all of those?
2024-09-03 16:20:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I thought
2024-09-03 16:20:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see, i would read the sub-bullets under that "SBSA and SystemReady machines" bullet as being the specific ones that are blocking
2024-09-03 16:20:24 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> that's arm32 platforms
2024-09-03 16:20:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: technically no, since the criteria link to the *other* page. i've been trying to get those two reconciled forever.
2024-09-03 16:21:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if someone wants to tell me we can make one of them a redirect to the other i am all in favor of that
2024-09-03 16:21:14 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> Yes so the "SBSA and SystemReady machines " is the category 
2024-09-03 16:21:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, but if we blocked on this specific one i'd expect it listed as a sub-bullet
2024-09-03 16:22:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or for there to be some kinda catch-all "we block on any of them"
2024-09-03 16:22:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> openqa testing at least indicates that it works on qemu/kvm - https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/2851727 is an install from the server netinst, for e.g.
2024-09-03 16:23:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> can anyone test on the LX2160A ?
2024-09-03 16:23:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which is the thing in the list?
2024-09-03 16:25:42 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> that looks like a chip used in whitebox switches...
2024-09-03 16:26:01 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i.e. embedded not server
2024-09-03 16:26:02 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> Yep, I can probably dig mine out of where ever I shoved it and test
2024-09-03 16:26:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> shall we say for now that we're punting for more testing and maybe a clarification on the supported hardware list?
2024-09-03 16:26:48 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> anyways, i can test an ampere server today and see if I can figure anything out. Was deep in the weeds of arm booting a few weeks agao..
2024-09-03 16:28:50 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm okay with a punt
2024-09-03 16:29:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2309337 - punt (delay decision) - there's some ambiguity around the ARM supported hardware list, here, and we would like to see additional testing to see if other SystemReady hardware is affected
2024-09-03 16:29:03 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> +1 punt
2024-09-03 16:29:06 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ack
2024-09-03 16:29:12 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2024-09-03 16:29:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:29:15 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:29:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:30:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2309337 - punt (delay decision) - there's some ambiguity around the ARM supported hardware list, here, and we would like to see additional testing to see if other SystemReady hardware is affected
2024-09-03 16:30:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:30:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to mail arm@ list about reconciling the supported HW lists
2024-09-03 16:30:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's move on to:
2024-09-03 16:30:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
2024-09-03 16:31:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2297927) rpmsign broken: error: sign_hash failed
2024-09-03 16:31:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297927
2024-09-03 16:31:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1630
2024-09-03 16:31:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, ima-evm-utils, ON_QA
2024-09-03 16:31:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+ngompa)
2024-09-03 16:33:52 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is there some reason this shouldn't just be a 0day?
2024-09-03 16:35:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Robinson proposed it
2024-09-03 16:35:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> peter, when you say this is "used by IoT Edition" is it used in a way that's significant during compose, initial deployment, or use before first update?
2024-09-03 16:36:21 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> it may cause issues with rpm signing and IMA is used as part of IoT hecne the freeze exception a IoT would want it fixed in the official beta
2024-09-03 16:37:21 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> yes, so IMA is used in the disk image creation as we lay them down on disk, but it may cause upgrade issues for users that are actively using IMA hence the request for a FE
2024-09-03 16:37:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, sure
2024-09-03 16:37:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 what he said
2024-09-03 16:37:49 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> FE +1
2024-09-03 16:37:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that makes it sound blockery rather than FE, but +1
2024-09-03 16:37:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Seems self contained enough...
2024-09-03 16:37:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-09-03 16:38:06 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 then
2024-09-03 16:38:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-03 16:38:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> fe +1
2024-09-03 16:38:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2297927 - AcceptedFE (Beta) - this is accepted as it potentially has consequences during compose of IoT and upgrade of IoT systems to Beta, per Peter
2024-09-03 16:38:38 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:38:44 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:38:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:39:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:39:38 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2024-09-03 16:41:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2297927 - AcceptedFE (Beta) - this is accepted as it potentially has consequences during compose of IoT and upgrade of IoT systems to Beta, per Peter
2024-09-03 16:41:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2304328) Multiple issues migrating from ostree-boot to rust-bootupd
2024-09-03 16:41:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304328
2024-09-03 16:41:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1638
2024-09-03 16:42:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, rust-bootupd, NEW
2024-09-03 16:42:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oooh, "multiple issues".
2024-09-03 16:44:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I would like at least some clarification of the potential blast radius
2024-09-03 16:45:15 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Some kind of FE definitely feels warranted
2024-09-03 16:45:26 <@pbrobinson:fedora.im> probably any of the atomic desktops and related 
2024-09-03 16:45:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But only the rust-bootupd package needs to be touched?
2024-09-03 16:47:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah
2024-09-03 16:47:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> travier seems to have proposed this as a kind of catch-all for "whatever he thinks needs fixing"
2024-09-03 16:47:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it would be nice to have a clearer scope of work
2024-09-03 16:47:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> travier: around?
2024-09-03 16:51:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm
2024-09-03 16:51:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 👋
2024-09-03 16:51:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'm gonna say we should punt this and request a clearer definition of exactly what is envisaged to be fixed here, just for form's sak
2024-09-03 16:51:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yeah
2024-09-03 16:52:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-03 16:52:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (to what Adam just said, sorry)
2024-09-03 16:53:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2304328 - punt (delay decision) - we're generally inclined to +1 appropriate and scoped fixes for bootupd, but this seems like a very vague ticket, we would like to ask travier for more clarity on which of the 7.5 listed issues are considered in scope for fixing here
2024-09-03 16:54:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:54:24 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2024-09-03 16:54:25 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:54:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-03 16:54:37 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-03 16:54:50 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> We're doing fractional issues now? Fractional scaling is still beta
2024-09-03 16:55:32 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (?b)le{e,a}ding edge!
2024-09-03 16:55:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2304328 - punt (delay decision) - we're generally inclined to +1 appropriate and scoped fixes for bootupd, but this seems like a very vague ticket, we would like to ask travier for more clarity on which of the 7.5 listed issues are considered in scope for fixing here
2024-09-03 16:55:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, let's do a quick spin through
2024-09-03 16:56:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Beta blockers
2024-09-03 16:56:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info as a reminder, we're not generally revoting these, just checking in on status
2024-09-03 16:56:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2276839) Fedora 41: Workstation live x86_64 image exceeds maximum size
2024-09-03 16:56:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276839
2024-09-03 16:56:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, distribution, ASSIGNED
2024-09-03 16:56:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we tried droppnig botocore but it didn't help much. at this point i think the plan is to say This Is Fine and bump the max size
2024-09-03 16:57:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what that would usually mean is updating https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f41/blocking/
2024-09-03 16:57:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is somewhat stymied by the fact that page doesn't exist yet
2024-09-03 16:57:20 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yeah, let's just keep feeding more bits into it.
2024-09-03 16:57:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which means someone's behind on an SOP, or an SOP is missing a bit
2024-09-03 16:58:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, aoife's status says she's out sick. soo, i guess i can get on this...
2024-09-03 16:59:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo can you officially declare for the record that workstation wg wants the max size bumped? i think that'd be good enough of a paper trail
2024-09-03 16:59:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure
2024-09-03 16:59:38 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> sure's not enough, it needs to be "I hereby declare that..."
2024-09-03 16:59:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> :D
2024-09-03 16:59:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-09-03 17:00:03 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Hear ye, hear ye
2024-09-03 17:00:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> "I hereby declare that the Workstation Live image can be increased to 2.5GB."
2024-09-03 17:00:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> "I hereby declare that the Workstation Live image can be increased to 2.5GB on behalf of the Fedora Workstation Working Group."
2024-09-03 17:00:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> František Zatloukal: fancy enough for you?
2024-09-03 17:00:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Boo, no "gavel" emoji
2024-09-03 17:00:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we haven't been able to reduce the size. Conan Kudo says workstation WG wants it bumped to 2.5 GB. as aoife is out sick adam will try and get the f41 blocking page created with the new size
2024-09-03 17:00:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to get f41 pgm docs created
2024-09-03 17:00:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, fancyness overload moments now! 😁😅
2024-09-03 17:01:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2305291) GRUB 2.12 generated grub.cfg does not work with GRUB 2.06
2024-09-03 17:01:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305291
2024-09-03 17:01:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1618
2024-09-03 17:01:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, grub2, NEW
2024-09-03 17:01:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...there's a workaround for atomic desktops here, but that doesn't apply to IoT
2024-09-03 17:02:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Robinson can IoT use the same workaround?
2024-09-03 17:02:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I'm here, just about...
2024-09-03 17:02:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> go back to bed!
2024-09-03 17:03:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Please !action me whatever needs updating/doing and I'll read over the meeting logs and get it done tomorrow 
2024-09-03 17:03:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's nothing major, i'll do it today, but if i don't have commit rights you can review/merge it when you're better
2024-09-03 17:03:46 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Aoife Moloney - Out Sick: get well 🙂
2024-09-03 17:03:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney - Out Sick: Get some rest and feel better. We need you in top shape
2024-09-03 17:05:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ok leaving now 😅 thanks folks I should be in better shape tomorrow 
2024-09-03 17:06:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info it seems like the shape of this issue is known and there's a workaround for the atomic desktops, but there doesn't seem to be anything in place yet to address it for IoT
2024-09-03 17:06:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we can't do much more about this, ball is in IoT team's court
2024-09-03 17:06:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2282171) gsk: vulkan renderer causes gtk4 apps to crash on resize operations on Raspberry Pi 4 and 400
2024-09-03 17:06:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2282171
2024-09-03 17:06:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, gtk4, NEW
2024-09-03 17:07:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ahhh, this one. so now people seem to be happily optimizing the gl renderer, which is lovely but doesn't help much so long as we're using the vulkan one
2024-09-03 17:07:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> hmm, that's a bit unfortunate situation, there's some movement around ngl performance regression fix (ngl rednerer was new in f40)
2024-09-03 17:07:41 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> gl was used before
2024-09-03 17:07:52 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but the default (vk) is still crashing on window resizing
2024-09-03 17:08:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I mean, I don't see a problem in adding if driver == "v3d": return ngl somewhere in gtk...
2024-09-03 17:09:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but upstream didn't seem too happy bout that
2024-09-03 17:09:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, this seems like something somebody could definitely fix somewhere if they would just do it
2024-09-03 17:10:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i do see "The rpi is pretty much the exception because it advertises itself as a very capable Vulkan driver which makes GTK choose Vulkan over GL"
2024-09-03 17:12:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> beta early target is 09-17. i'm thinking it might be worth kicking this to fesco at this point
2024-09-03 17:12:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we wait another week it's quite tight
2024-09-03 17:12:51 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-03 17:13:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Can we just pull the proposed fix...?
2024-09-03 17:13:09 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/7287
2024-09-03 17:13:26 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> this is in afaik
2024-09-03 17:13:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Oh
2024-09-03 17:13:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> So if that didn't fix it, we should note that on one of the issues
2024-09-03 17:13:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there were multiple issues
2024-09-03 17:14:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> some are resolved but some still outstanding
2024-09-03 17:14:02 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yes, 4.14.5 contains that PR
2024-09-03 17:14:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: do we actually have a single clear upstream ticket for the remaining issue?
2024-09-03 17:14:19 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> heh, lemme see
2024-09-03 17:15:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> hmm, no, sigh...
2024-09-03 17:15:58 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> if only the original issue that Lukas Brabec created wasn't closed, we'd have one
2024-09-03 17:16:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I can create one later in the evening
2024-09-03 17:16:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe file a new one just for clarity, yeah
2024-09-03 17:16:23 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> stacktrace is attached to the bz
2024-09-03 17:16:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with the exact current issue description and trace
2024-09-03 17:16:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> upstream hates bz :P
2024-09-03 17:16:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> will do, in span of few hours
2024-09-03 17:16:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> then if they want to say it's mesa's fault, fine, at least we have a paper trail
2024-09-03 17:16:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks
2024-09-03 17:17:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we are still waiting for the various upstreams here to agree on who needs to fix what to address this
2024-09-03 17:17:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action František Zatloukal to file a new upstream gtk issue clearly explaining the remaining issue, with the stace trace attached
2024-09-03 17:18:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to alert fesco to the stuck blocker
2024-09-03 17:18:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2283978) Raspberry Pi 4 automatically suspends when idle, claims to support suspend, but can't be woken up
2024-09-03 17:18:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283978
2024-09-03 17:18:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, kernel, NEW
2024-09-03 17:18:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Mesa is the stuck blocker?
2024-09-03 17:18:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> still an issue, retested today with and without https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dbf55dbc52
2024-09-03 17:18:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We have the FESCo meeting running right now, I can bring it up in Open Floor
2024-09-03 17:18:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> mesa or gtk
2024-09-03 17:19:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we aren't sure
2024-09-03 17:19:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: i was going to ,but thanks
2024-09-03 17:19:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: there's a whole lot of finger-pointing going on
2024-09-03 17:19:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: OK, I'll make sure it is on the agenda and you can provide the fingers.
2024-09-03 17:19:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> rgr
2024-09-03 17:20:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is kind of another one where we're waiting around for someone to do...something
2024-09-03 17:21:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: i'm surprised by the KDE report, actually, does KDE have the same "suspend after 15 mins on AC" rule as GNOME?
2024-09-03 17:21:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: i'm surprised by the KDE report, actually, does KDE have the same "suspend after 15 mins even on AC" rule as GNOME?
2024-09-03 17:21:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-09-03 17:21:14 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we can add this one to "upgrades borked on devices without time keeping chip" and keep it rolling over forever
2024-09-03 17:21:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> fun
2024-09-03 17:21:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we implemented it very shortly after GNOME
2024-09-03 17:21:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Lenovo asked us to
2024-09-03 17:21:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so we did :)
2024-09-03 17:21:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it's broken on pressing "sleep" there too, obviously
2024-09-03 17:21:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we're kinda down to "we need a way to disable suspend on Pis" or documenting it, i think
2024-09-03 17:22:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> given that we're not gonna get both desktops to change their suspend policies, i don't think
2024-09-03 17:22:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> can we tell systemd suspend doesn't exist?
2024-09-03 17:22:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are various ways to disable suspend
2024-09-03 17:22:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the trick is doing it *only on raspberry pis*
2024-09-03 17:22:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think we can do that at install time. we don't know we're installing on a raspberry pi.
2024-09-03 17:23:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it has to be at runtime, somehow.
2024-09-03 17:23:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> maybe something in arm-image-installer?
2024-09-03 17:23:18 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> arm image installer does
2024-09-03 17:23:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it knows the board
2024-09-03 17:24:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> technically udev rules can know too
2024-09-03 17:24:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think at least with dt mode there's a procfs thing
2024-09-03 17:24:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> not sure about tianocore/uefi mode
2024-09-03 17:24:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i was thinking about a udev rule
2024-09-03 17:25:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or i guess we could do it in the arm image installer, if it's able to do that kinda thing
2024-09-03 17:25:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> does someone want an action item to look at it>?
2024-09-03 17:25:44 <@jannau:fedora.im> Systemd has platform integration for units and would know as well 
2024-09-03 17:27:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay...
2024-09-03 17:28:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this more or less boils down to 'find a way to disable suspend only on raspberry pis (but not in the kernel because jforbes says that won't fly upstream), or document it and move on'. we had some ideas in the meeting which we can note in the bugzilla
2024-09-03 17:28:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 2309138 is ON_QA so let's assume that's on track
2024-09-03 17:28:29 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> y'all still going RIP
2024-09-03 17:28:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2270430) Raspberry Pi 4: KDE initial setup is broken without nomodeset, KDE desktop won't load with nomodeset
2024-09-03 17:28:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270430
2024-09-03 17:28:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, xorg-x11-server-Xwayland, POST
2024-09-03 17:28:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> last one
2024-09-03 17:28:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I've verified the proposed fix
2024-09-03 17:28:58 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> works
2024-09-03 17:29:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> awesome
2024-09-03 17:29:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 53 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:29:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> there is some dicussion upstream going on
2024-09-03 17:29:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> geraldosimiao gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 54 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:29:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> regarding the possible effects on nvidia
2024-09-03 17:29:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ngompa gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 55 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:29:47 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ohh, I'll get fat, thanks!
2024-09-03 17:29:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> farribeiro gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 56 cookies, 7 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:29:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this is in progress with a patch posted upstream, some possible side effects of the patch are being discussed, we will continue to monitor progress, there is enough time to let it ride for a bit before attempting a build
2024-09-03 17:30:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> sgallagh gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 57 cookies, 8 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:30:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-09-03 17:30:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2024-09-03 17:30:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (as always, I'll process the bz/pagure changes in about 2 hours)
2024-09-03 17:31:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> kparal has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F40 timeframe
2024-09-03 17:31:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks frantisek
2024-09-03 17:31:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> adamwill gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 58 cookies, 9 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-09-03 17:32:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, i guess we're done then
2024-09-03 17:32:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks for coming!
2024-09-03 17:32:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting