2024-09-16 16:00:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F41-blocker-review
2024-09-16 16:00:03 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-09-16 16:00:03 UTC
2024-09-16 16:00:04 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F41-blocker-review'
2024-09-16 16:00:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-09-16 16:00:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:00:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
2024-09-16 16:00:15 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:00:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2024-09-16 16:00:47 <@siosm:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-16 16:00:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:01:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:01:03 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2024-09-16 16:01:08 <@copperi:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:01:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jan Kuparinen (copperi)
2024-09-16 16:01:17 <@davdunc:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:01:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> David Duncan (davdunc) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:01:53 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:01:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2024-09-16 16:02:22 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-16 16:02:22 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sumantro Mukherjee (sumantrom) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:02:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi hi everyone, how's it going
2024-09-16 16:03:10 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Pretty good for a Monday
2024-09-16 16:04:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: hah, yeah
2024-09-16 16:04:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty
2024-09-16 16:04:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> new improved meetbot boilerplate time (aka it's all coming at once again, so gird your loins)
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@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.
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-09-16 16:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-09-16 16:05:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> wohooo
2024-09-16 16:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2024-09-16 16:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 4 Proposed Blockers
2024-09-16 16:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Accepted Blockers
2024-09-16 16:05:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2024-09-16 16:06:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I happily would :)
2024-09-16 16:06:01 <@jnsamyak:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-16 16:06:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:07:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty
2024-09-16 16:07:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info František Zatloukal will secretarialize
2024-09-16 16:07:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> without further ado, let's get going with:
2024-09-16 16:07:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2024-09-16 16:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311936
2024-09-16 16:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2311936) pyanaconda.modules.common.errors.storage.UnknownDeviceError: Volume0_0
2024-09-16 16:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
2024-09-16 16:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1658
2024-09-16 16:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
2024-09-16 16:09:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we rejected this for beta as the criterion for firmware RAID is specifically for Final
2024-09-16 16:09:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure does look like a +1 for Final, though
2024-09-16 16:09:45 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Yuppie, looks +1 to me
2024-09-16 16:10:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-16 16:10:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:10:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi conan
2024-09-16 16:11:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yep yep, +1 for Final
2024-09-16 16:11:52 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> +1 for Final 
2024-09-16 16:12:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311936 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a clear violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to detect and install to firmware RAID storage devices"
2024-09-16 16:12:35 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Seems that we should be doing a build 🙂
2024-09-16 16:13:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yup!
2024-09-16 16:13:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:13:19 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:13:21 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:13:43 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:13:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:13:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:14:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2311936 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a clear violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to detect and install to firmware RAID storage devices"
2024-09-16 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
2024-09-16 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, python3.13, NEW
2024-09-16 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1661
2024-09-16 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311907
2024-09-16 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2311907) Anaconda crashes when an error occurs and should be reported.
2024-09-16 16:14:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it's pretty clear now that this only affects the testing path (it doesn't affect real crashes)
2024-09-16 16:14:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but kparal proposes it on the basis that it restricts testing coverage (we can't test crash reporting on demand)
2024-09-16 16:15:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but kparal proposes it on the basis that it restricts testing coverage (we can't test crash reporting on demand unless we have a convenient 'real' crash to use)
2024-09-16 16:15:09 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> So we're seeing real crashes being reported?
2024-09-16 16:15:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: yeah
2024-09-16 16:15:14 <@kparal:matrix.org> I think in this case it's pretty crucial that the test path works. We won't be able to fix it with an update.
2024-09-16 16:15:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and we've identified the bug and it is specific to something on the test path (it uses `exec()`)
2024-09-16 16:15:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think that makes sense
2024-09-16 16:15:41 <@kparal:matrix.org> and once all real crashes are fixed in anaconda, how do we check whether it works with the Final RC?
2024-09-16 16:15:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FinalBlocker
2024-09-16 16:15:48 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> We would be also happy to have this working
2024-09-16 16:15:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i'm fine with the rationale
2024-09-16 16:15:57 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 Spinal Blocker
2024-09-16 16:16:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it think it was appropriate that it didn't block beta because we *did* have a 'real' crash there so we knew reporting worked
2024-09-16 16:16:06 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> +1 FinalBlocker
2024-09-16 16:16:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we can't guarantee that for final
2024-09-16 16:16:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-16 16:16:13 <@kparal:matrix.org> no spinal blockers, please!
2024-09-16 16:16:14 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Also it could fail on any other path, it's just unpredictable 
2024-09-16 16:16:30 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> just for Final
2024-09-16 16:16:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: the upstream references someone found seem pretty clear it's to do with using `exec`, don't they?
2024-09-16 16:16:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or did i read that wrong?
2024-09-16 16:17:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo
2024-09-16 16:17:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have enough +1s
2024-09-16 16:18:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yep, +1
2024-09-16 16:18:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311907 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted under "Bug hinders execution of required Final test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria#Final_Blocker_Bugs . this bug prevents us from reliably testing whether crash reporting works, which is an important and release-blocking function
2024-09-16 16:18:23 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:18:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:18:26 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:18:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:18:30 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:18:34 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:19:12 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I wasn't aware of newest update, so yes it looks like that
2024-09-16 16:19:27 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Anyway this is not the only place where it could fail
2024-09-16 16:19:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:19:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2311907 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted under "Bug hinders execution of required Final test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria#Final_Blocker_Bugs . this bug prevents us from reliably testing whether crash reporting works, which is an important and release-blocking function
2024-09-16 16:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258100
2024-09-16 16:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, qemu, MODIFIED
2024-09-16 16:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1663
2024-09-16 16:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2258100) qemu guest agent: migrate "blacklist" option to "block-rpcs", add support for "allow-rpcs" alternative
2024-09-16 16:20:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so the justification here is a bit short: "Virtualization agent failure in default installation in a QEMU virtual machine"
2024-09-16 16:20:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is anyone up to date on this one and can unpack it a bit?
2024-09-16 16:21:52 <@kparal:matrix.org> I noticed there's a failed service showing when booting F41 in a VM. Maybe it's related to the criterion that services must not fail in general?
2024-09-16 16:22:11 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ha, if it's that service
2024-09-16 16:22:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> is that the one kamil? or some other service?
2024-09-16 16:22:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> travier: are you around?
2024-09-16 16:23:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> qemu-guest-agent.service
2024-09-16 16:23:58 <@kparal:matrix.org> fails on boot in a default install
2024-09-16 16:24:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ...in a VM, i guess. is the concern purely the failing service, or is the functionality the service provides important? i'm not sure what the generic qemu guest agent service actually does.
2024-09-16 16:25:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but, lemme check, but we afaik have a criterion than no service can fail, no?
2024-09-16 16:25:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#System_services
2024-09-16 16:25:52 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria#System_services
2024-09-16 16:25:54 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present."
2024-09-16 16:25:55 <@kparal:matrix.org> not sure whether it fails on bare metal
2024-09-16 16:25:59 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Dangit, too slow
2024-09-16 16:26:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it imo doesn't matter if it fails on bare
2024-09-16 16:26:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, this would be a conditional violation with the condition being "only in a qemu VM"
2024-09-16 16:26:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (assuming that's the case, of course)
2024-09-16 16:27:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we want to take it on that basis i'd be fine with that
2024-09-16 16:28:34 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I think we can take it on that basis. :)
2024-09-16 16:28:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we block on QEMU+KVM, so I think we should
2024-09-16 16:29:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we also ship the guest agent on our blocking cloud image
2024-09-16 16:29:07 <@siosm:matrix.org> 👋
2024-09-16 16:29:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi travier
2024-09-16 16:29:47 <@siosm:matrix.org> yeah, it fails only in QEMU VMs
2024-09-16 16:29:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> can you unpack the blocker justification for this a bit? is it simply the failed service breaking the 'no failed services' criterion? or is the functionality of the service important?
2024-09-16 16:30:03 <@davdunc:fedora.im> that's what I was thinking Conan Kudo 
2024-09-16 16:30:35 <@siosm:matrix.org> It's a default service used for various things in VMs: injecting keys, doing network manipulation, running commands
2024-09-16 16:30:42 <@siosm:matrix.org> some cloud might rely on it
2024-09-16 16:30:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> IIRC the service is required for proper quiescing for snapshots and such from QEMU too 
2024-09-16 16:30:51 <@siosm:matrix.org> some clouds might rely on it
2024-09-16 16:31:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, thanks
2024-09-16 16:31:05 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-16 16:31:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2024-09-16 16:31:56 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker per cited criterion
2024-09-16 16:32:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-16 16:33:06 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2024-09-16 16:33:09 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 Blocker
2024-09-16 16:33:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-16 16:33:19 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1
2024-09-16 16:33:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2024-09-16 16:33:33 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1
2024-09-16 16:35:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2258100 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly" on qemu VMs (including cloud instances). we note the affected service provides pretty important functionality for scripted deployment of VMs
2024-09-16 16:36:04 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2024-09-16 16:36:08 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:36:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:36:27 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:37:23 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:38:17 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:38:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2258100 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly" on qemu VMs (including cloud instances). we note the affected service provides pretty important functionality for scripted deployment of VMs
2024-09-16 16:38:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1662
2024-09-16 16:38:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, wpa_supplicant, NEW
2024-09-16 16:38:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2307226) f41 and rawhide should get the fix from wpa_supplicant-2.11-3.fc40
2024-09-16 16:38:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307226
2024-09-16 16:39:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Am I understanding correctly, WPA2 enterprise doesn't work?
2024-09-16 16:40:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, it sounds like it's a bit more narrow than that
2024-09-16 16:41:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> How narrow? I'm only just learning I can get a TPM involved in my wifi authentication which is exciting.
2024-09-16 16:42:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't honestly know enough about enterprise wifi security to know
2024-09-16 16:42:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> however, the proposer of this bug is called Williamson so it gets an automatic +1 from me
2024-09-16 16:43:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but srsly - i think i'd be inclined to punt and ask someone to explain it to me like I'm 5
2024-09-16 16:43:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Blood binds.
2024-09-16 16:43:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> That should be a criteria, or at least a footnote
2024-09-16 16:45:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah... reading through it, I'd probably prefer punting...
2024-09-16 16:45:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we can afford to do that, plenty of time till final
2024-09-16 16:45:31 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> If you'd cut my head off, I would not know. Punt.
2024-09-16 16:47:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2307226 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to ask for clarification on the seriousness of this issue, as it doesn't seem apparent unless you're an enterprise networking expert
2024-09-16 16:48:04 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:48:06 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-16 16:48:16 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:48:18 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:48:41 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-16 16:49:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2307226 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to ask for clarification on the seriousness of this issue, as it doesn't seem apparent unless you're an enterprise networking expert
2024-09-16 16:49:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's take a quick spin through:
2024-09-16 16:49:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2024-09-16 16:49:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info as a reminder, we're checking in on progress here, not revoting
2024-09-16 16:49:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1605
2024-09-16 16:49:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2282171) gsk: vulkan renderer causes gtk4 apps to crash on resize operations on Raspberry Pi 4 and 400
2024-09-16 16:49:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2282171
2024-09-16 16:49:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, bcm283x-firmware, ASSIGNED
2024-09-16 16:50:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info peter told me "I know the solution, just need to finish it up and make sure it fully works"
2024-09-16 16:51:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks kamil
2024-09-16 16:51:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> guess there's not much more to say on this one, we'll just wait for the fix
2024-09-16 16:52:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1607
2024-09-16 16:52:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, kernel, ASSIGNED
2024-09-16 16:52:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2283978) Raspberry Pi 4 automatically suspends when idle, claims to support suspend, but can't be woken up
2024-09-16 16:52:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283978
2024-09-16 16:52:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hum, i think we intended to consider this resolved by documenting it, didn't we?
2024-09-16 16:52:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we need to do that
2024-09-16 16:53:47 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I can volunteer.
2024-09-16 16:54:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks
2024-09-16 16:54:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is it tagged commonbugs?
2024-09-16 16:54:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no. i've fixed that.
2024-09-16 16:54:51 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I am not sure, but we intended it.
2024-09-16 16:54:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we've now tagged this as commonbugs, likeliest resolution is that we document this, as fixing it is complex
2024-09-16 16:55:00 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> oh, we did not?
2024-09-16 16:56:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it didn't have the tag, yeah
2024-09-16 16:56:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1603
2024-09-16 16:56:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
2024-09-16 16:56:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2278845) gnome-initial-setup: Choosing avatar results in "SetIconFile call failed" "unknown reason" due to SELinux denial
2024-09-16 16:56:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278845
2024-09-16 16:57:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we're just waiting on zdenek here
2024-09-16 16:57:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's a bit early to start pinging him but i'll keep an eye on it
2024-09-16 16:58:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we are just waiting for a fix from the selinux maintainer here, not much else to talk about
2024-09-16 16:58:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-09-16 16:58:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2024-09-16 16:59:37 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> not on my side
2024-09-16 17:00:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nothing from me
2024-09-16 17:01:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, thanks for coming, everyone
2024-09-16 17:02:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see you next week, same bat time, same bat channel
2024-09-16 17:02:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting