2025-03-17 16:00:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F42-blocker-review
2025-03-17 16:00:58 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-03-17 16:00:57 UTC
2025-03-17 16:00:58 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F42-blocker-review'
2025-03-17 16:01:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-03-17 16:01:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who's around for blocker fun?
2025-03-17 16:01:32 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-17 16:01:34 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-17 16:01:35 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-17 16:01:36 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jiří Konečný (jkonecny)
2025-03-17 16:01:36 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2025-03-17 16:01:41 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-17 16:01:42 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2025-03-17 16:01:52 <@siosm:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:01:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:02:05 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:02:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukas Brabec (lbrabec)
2025-03-17 16:02:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> wow, full room
2025-03-17 16:02:29 <@kparal:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:02:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:02:37 <@jnsamyak:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:02:45 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:02:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's everyone doing tonight? check, check. check 1 2
2025-03-17 16:03:13 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Its Monday yaay
2025-03-17 16:03:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> truly the best day of a week whose name starts with M
2025-03-17 16:03:31 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I'm just heading home from work so I might have longer reactions on mobile - please be patient
2025-03-17 16:03:42 <@kparal:matrix.org> adamw: jkonecny is here for 2352573, we might want to start with it so that he doesn't need to wait
2025-03-17 16:03:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> truly the best day of the week whose name starts with M
2025-03-17 16:03:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, we can do that
2025-03-17 16:04:05 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:04:06 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Aloha
2025-03-17 16:04:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:04:17 <@kparal:matrix.org> or we can leave it as the last one, if you prefer, jkonecny 🙂
2025-03-17 16:04:25 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Mednesday?
2025-03-17 16:05:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's do some boilerplate!
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@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.
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Beta_Release_Criteria
2025-03-17 16:05:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria
2025-03-17 16:05:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2025-03-17 16:05:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 5 Accepted Blockers
2025-03-17 16:05:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 4 Proposed Blockers
2025-03-17 16:05:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2025-03-17 16:05:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2025-03-17 16:05:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2025-03-17 16:05:44 <@kparal:matrix.org> hmm, so meetbot can finally understand multiline pastes?
2025-03-17 16:05:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes!
2025-03-17 16:05:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for the last few weeks actually
2025-03-17 16:06:00 <@kparal:matrix.org> I pasted it line by line the last time, it was... painful
2025-03-17 16:06:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've been using it throughout f42 cycle
2025-03-17 16:06:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah isn't it
2025-03-17 16:06:13 <@kparal:matrix.org> good to know now 😄
2025-03-17 16:07:09 <@kparal:matrix.org> Lukas Brabec usually volunteers to do secretarializing... right?
2025-03-17 16:08:11 <@kparal:matrix.org> (usually = I forced him to do it the last time)
2025-03-17 16:08:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> =)
2025-03-17 16:08:44 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> sure, why not
2025-03-17 16:08:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> Lukas Brabec++
2025-03-17 16:08:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> kparal gave a cookie to lbrabec. They now have 15 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-17 16:09:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> derekenz gave a cookie to lbrabec. They now have 16 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-17 16:09:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> eh, the release cycles are off 🙂
2025-03-17 16:09:35 <@kparal:matrix.org> but the cookies are no less tasty
2025-03-17 16:09:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info lbrabec will secretarialize
2025-03-17 16:09:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get started
2025-03-17 16:10:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny do you want to do 2352573 first or last?
2025-03-17 16:10:21 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> First would be better
2025-03-17 16:11:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright
2025-03-17 16:11:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda-webui, ASSIGNED
2025-03-17 16:11:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz, +geraldosimiao)
2025-03-17 16:11:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2352573) Can't choose a bootloader device, crash when biosboot partition is on the second one
2025-03-17 16:11:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352573
2025-03-17 16:11:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1798
2025-03-17 16:11:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this has +3 in ticket now, but let's talk about it
2025-03-17 16:12:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> There are two proposed violated criteria: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352573#c8
2025-03-17 16:13:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i feel like *at least* if this isn't going to work, it should fail better
2025-03-17 16:13:15 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> So background information, we have decided that this feature is one of the low priority ones as it is already quite hidden in GTK UI and it is not expected workflow for a Workstation user to have to deal with this.
2025-03-17 16:13:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it shouldn't be possible to "click through" the error, and none of the associated weirdness should happen
2025-03-17 16:13:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> We usually want to block on functionality that is broken by accident, and not intentionally removed/not implemented (as is the case here), so I don't think we need to insist on the first one
2025-03-17 16:13:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm fine with waiving or modifying the criterion requiring this to actually be *allowed*, though
2025-03-17 16:13:39 <@kparal:matrix.org> However, I feel more about the second one
2025-03-17 16:13:46 <@kparal:matrix.org> However, I feel more strongly about the second one
2025-03-17 16:14:22 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> My main point is how problematic this could be?
2025-03-17 16:14:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny will it be possible to fix it so you can't click through the error and are properly prevented from trying this?
2025-03-17 16:14:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> so if this can be communicated well ("this is not supported" etc) and it doesn't crash, I think it's ok
2025-03-17 16:14:47 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I agree with this.
2025-03-17 16:15:08 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The functionality can be added back in future releases.
2025-03-17 16:15:11 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Sounds good
2025-03-17 16:15:21 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> That's what I would like to see too
2025-03-17 16:15:21 <@kparal:matrix.org> in other words, anaconda should not allow installing to a layout that it doesn't support (and then the installation crashes or the system is not bootable)
2025-03-17 16:16:18 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Yeah, I think I agree with that. Not sure how complicated that would be from the top of my mind but it shouldn't traceback.
2025-03-17 16:16:47 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:16:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:16:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so for now shall we say we block on properly rejecting this operation, and we can reconsider if fixing that turns out to be unexpectedly hard?
2025-03-17 16:16:54 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> My main concern is to implement a feature so late for F42. That is something I would like to avoid
2025-03-17 16:17:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> currently it's not even clear on which disk the bootloader must reside. It thought it was always the first one, but then I found cases where anaconda actually insisted on having biosboot on the second (raid) device. It's just not clear what to do there.
2025-03-17 16:18:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2352573 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing". We agree that, for webUI, it will be satisfactory if it correctly prevents the user from attempting this configuration, rather than allowing the user to proceed and crashing. We consider the ability to do this in gtkUI to fulfill the requirement that this operation be *possible*, so we do not require webUI to implement it for F42
2025-03-17 16:18:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:18:50 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:18:51 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:18:55 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:19:13 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:19:21 <@tablepc:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:19:28 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:19:39 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Ack and I'll find out how complex that will be, hopefully not that much
2025-03-17 16:20:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2352573 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing". We agree that, for webUI, it will be satisfactory if it correctly prevents the user from attempting this configuration, rather than allowing the user to proceed and crashing. We consider the ability to do this in gtkUI to fulfill the requirement that this operation be possible, so we do not require webUI to implement it for F42
2025-03-17 16:21:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2351848) unable to perform an mdraid installation with Fedora-Workstation-Live-42_Beta-1.4.x86_64.iso
2025-03-17 16:21:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +boniboyblue, +geraldosimiao, +derekenz)
2025-03-17 16:21:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
2025-03-17 16:21:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1792
2025-03-17 16:21:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351848
2025-03-17 16:21:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so from Kamil Páral's testing it sounds like we might have more of these soon?
2025-03-17 16:22:07 <@kparal:matrix.org> I think we will, yes
2025-03-17 16:22:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this one, i think, is the case where you *create* a RAID device in the cockpit storage editor, but attempt to *assign it a mount point* in anaconda's mount assignment UI (not in the storage editor)
2025-03-17 16:22:31 <@kparal:matrix.org> but given that I misunderstood the UI several times, I wait for confirmation from devs before I propose it 😄
2025-03-17 16:23:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not sure if it also applies to assigning mount points to a RAID device that exists *before you launch the installer at all*
2025-03-17 16:23:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any notes on this one, jkonecny ?
2025-03-17 16:25:48 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 final from me
2025-03-17 16:26:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i'm +1 on it without further input
2025-03-17 16:27:09 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-03-17 16:27:16 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1, no matter where the RAID is created, Anaconda must be able to assign mountpoints.
2025-03-17 16:27:35 <@derekenz:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-03-17 16:27:56 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-03-17 16:28:09 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Must revote that?
2025-03-17 16:28:18 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Already did at ticket
2025-03-17 16:29:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2351848 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of "Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", in the case that you're using webUI and the 'existing storage volume' is a RAID device (possibly only one you just created in the storage editor)
2025-03-17 16:29:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao you don't need to, but it does make it easier to count :D
2025-03-17 16:29:18 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> It is already ON_QA
2025-03-17 16:29:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, right
2025-03-17 16:29:42 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> 😆
2025-03-17 16:29:49 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:29:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:30:00 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:30:03 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:30:38 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:30:54 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:31:01 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:31:11 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:31:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2351848 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of "Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", in the case that you're using webUI and the 'existing storage volume' is a RAID device (possibly only one you just created in the storage editor)
2025-03-17 16:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, grub2, ON_QA
2025-03-17 16:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +lruzicka, +derekenz, +geraldosimiao)
2025-03-17 16:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351559
2025-03-17 16:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1789
2025-03-17 16:31:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2351559) Grub cannot boot Windows on a dual boot installation.
2025-03-17 16:31:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hum, people must've put in ticket votes late on this? or i missed it in my sweep
2025-03-17 16:31:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +4 by ticket means it's accepted unless anyone wants to vote against
2025-03-17 16:32:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm fine with +1
2025-03-17 16:32:11 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-17 16:32:35 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-17 16:34:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2351559 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation. As long as the Windows installation does not have BitLocker enabled, the installer must also install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora"
2025-03-17 16:34:42 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:34:44 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:34:45 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:34:47 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:34:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:35:27 <@tablepc:fedora.im> Adam, thanks for for verifying the 2352715 bug I will put it up on Gnome. I made it a blocker because it can make a really bad impression on a user.
2025-03-17 16:35:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2351559 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation. As long as the Windows installation does not have BitLocker enabled, the installer must also install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora"
2025-03-17 16:35:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Pat Kelly i haven't verified it, i just looked at your traceback. i didn't try to reproduce it
2025-03-17 16:36:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but obviously, it *did* crash, or else you wouldn't have a traceback. :D it may be more complicated than just what you were doing at the time, though. it probably involves your graphics hardware, and it *may* possibly involve something like other files lying around, if it was doing some kinda thumbnailing or something
2025-03-17 16:37:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352715
2025-03-17 16:37:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-3) (-catanzaro, -nielsenb, -boniboyblue)
2025-03-17 16:37:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gtk4, NEW
2025-03-17 16:37:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1795
2025-03-17 16:37:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2352715) [abrt] nautilus: wsi_common_acquire_next_image2(): nautilus killed by SIGSEGV
2025-03-17 16:37:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this is the bug we were just talking about
2025-03-17 16:37:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pat clearly did hit a nautilus crash, but nobody else has reproduced it, yet
2025-03-17 16:37:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the traceback is clearly in graphics rendering code (it goes through gtk/gdk and ultimately crashes in mesa)
2025-03-17 16:38:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would maybe argue lightly for punting this so we can get an upstream to look at the traceback and see if they can figure it out, but i'd be ok with rejecting for now and reconsidering if we get worrying feedback from upstream
2025-03-17 16:39:54 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Punt seems ok
2025-03-17 16:39:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is there any reason this use case requires running nautilus as admin?
2025-03-17 16:40:24 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 punt
2025-03-17 16:41:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen it's kinda hard to say without some kinda domain expert looking at the traceback
2025-03-17 16:41:17 <@tablepc:fedora.im> I found it runing in an account with admin not at root. I didn't try it in a none admin account.
2025-03-17 16:41:43 <@tablepc:fedora.im> I'll try that now
2025-03-17 16:42:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It just seems to me you can set a preferred application just fine as a regular user, not sure why elevating privileges is necessary. Not that it really has much to do with whether this is a blocker or not. Just curious mostly.
2025-03-17 16:42:42 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm on team FinalBlocker -1, no punt
2025-03-17 16:43:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-17 16:43:36 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-03-17 16:43:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's just call it rejected for now. it's not much of a difference, we can reconsider it if it seems worrying
2025-03-17 16:44:05 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ok
2025-03-17 16:44:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Sure
2025-03-17 16:44:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2352715 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as nobody has been able to reproduce it, so it doesn't seem like a common enough crash to be a conditional criteria violation. We can re-consider it if somebody is able to reproduce, or if feedback from upstream indicates it may affect a substantial number of users
2025-03-17 16:44:51 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:44:53 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:44:54 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:44:55 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 16:44:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:45:02 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:45:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2352715 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected for now as nobody has been able to reproduce it, so it doesn't seem like a common enough crash to be a conditional criteria violation. We can re-consider it if somebody is able to reproduce, or if feedback from upstream indicates it may affect a substantial number of users
2025-03-17 16:45:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info that's all the blocker proposals
2025-03-17 16:45:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's move on to:
2025-03-17 16:46:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
2025-03-17 16:46:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-4) (-kashyapc, -nielsenb, -derekenz, -geraldosimiao)
2025-03-17 16:46:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2352385) unable to reuse the btrfs-formatted disks for other filesystems
2025-03-17 16:46:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352385
2025-03-17 16:46:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1793
2025-03-17 16:46:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, cockpit, POST
2025-03-17 16:46:16 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Ah, jinx; it just came up
2025-03-17 16:46:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this was rejected as a blocker by ticket vote, but i've proposed it as an FE
2025-03-17 16:46:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> seems like a good FE candidate to me
2025-03-17 16:46:45 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> So, is this the process for it? - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process
2025-03-17 16:47:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah. FE is more of a vibe than a rule
2025-03-17 16:47:30 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Part of me worries about pulling in changes to disk handling code this close to release, but at the same time I feel like stuff is going to need to be pulled in anyway, so, eh
2025-03-17 16:47:30 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Heh, noted. I might steal that line.
2025-03-17 16:47:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we are trying to figure out 'is the benefit from allowing this fix through a freeze going to be greater than the risk of breaking something'
2025-03-17 16:47:55 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, makes full sense to me.
2025-03-17 16:48:11 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> FWIW, even the "criteria" that it is supposedly violating isn't entirely clear on this.
2025-03-17 16:49:17 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> (Anyway, it's discussed in the ticket and the bug; nothing much on it here for now, I guess)
2025-03-17 16:49:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, well, that's a whole different thing called 'criteria judo'...:P
2025-03-17 16:49:47 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 FE
2025-03-17 16:49:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1 FE
2025-03-17 16:50:00 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 FE
2025-03-17 16:50:05 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> FinalFE +1
2025-03-17 16:50:39 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalFE +1
2025-03-17 16:50:42 <@tablepc:fedora.im> The bug 2352715 is not present with using a user without admin.
2025-03-17 16:51:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2352385 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as an FE as it's a desirable feature that it would be good to get into F42 if we can land it in enough time to test it. we won't take it very late during freeze
2025-03-17 16:51:05 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> That's super weird. Thanks for testing!
2025-03-17 16:51:33 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:51:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kashyapc a non-obvious thing about anaconda FEs, specifically, is that anaconda has a team policy that they won't change anything between beta and final unless it's a blocker or FE fix, *even before the final freeze kicks in*
2025-03-17 16:51:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-17 16:51:36 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:51:47 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 16:51:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that's another reason to grant FEs where we think something ought to be fixed
2025-03-17 16:51:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i should probably write that into the FE SOP, now I think about it
2025-03-17 16:52:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2352385 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as an FE as it's a desirable feature that it would be good to get into F42 if we can land it in enough time to test it. we won't take it very late during freeze
2025-03-17 16:52:22 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> I see, makes sense. Thanks for the detail.
2025-03-17 16:52:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info that's all the proposals
2025-03-17 16:52:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's take a quick spin through:
2025-03-17 16:52:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2025-03-17 16:53:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as a reminder, we're not revoting these (unless we decide we have a reason to), just checking on status
2025-03-17 16:53:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2351026) UI partly in English when 100% translated
2025-03-17 16:53:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1796
2025-03-17 16:53:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351026
2025-03-17 16:53:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, anaconda-webui, POST
2025-03-17 16:53:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this one was accepted by ticket vote. the vote was actually based on a slight misconception of the problem, but i figured it was easier just to pretend not to know about that, and let it through. ;)
2025-03-17 16:54:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> looks like anaconda will post the full strings to weblate soon, so translators can get on them and hopefully we'll have more full translations in the final anaconda build we actually pull in for release. not sure there's any specific further action
2025-03-17 16:54:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info anaconda team will put the full, correct strings in weblate, then it's over to translators to do the translations, we'll just hope as much as possible gets into the final f42 anaconda build
2025-03-17 16:55:10 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> There's allot of cockpit strings there too
2025-03-17 16:55:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> But we're working on translate those too
2025-03-17 16:55:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks a lot to all translators
2025-03-17 16:55:56 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 👍😊
2025-03-17 16:56:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> derekenz gave a cookie to geraldosimiao. They now have 34 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-17 16:56:20 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> 😊
2025-03-17 16:56:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1794
2025-03-17 16:56:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW
2025-03-17 16:56:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352679
2025-03-17 16:56:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2352679) Fedora 42: Server boot aarch64 image exceeds maximum size
2025-03-17 16:56:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so for this one...we either need to poke at the image and try to find a way to squeeze it under 1G, or just get server WG to declare a bigger target size and tell everyone still using a 1G USB stick they got in a box of Cheerios that they're out of luck
2025-03-17 16:57:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> geraldosimiao has already given cookies to farribeiro during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-17 16:57:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Boy around?
2025-03-17 16:57:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> derekenz gave a cookie to farribeiro. They now have 31 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-17 16:57:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the 1G target size also kinda functions as a 'let's not let this thing get too absurdly big' check...
2025-03-17 16:57:39 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Didn't think they still produced 1GB thumb drives.
2025-03-17 16:57:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i haven't looked into the details yet but if i had to guess it'll probably turn out to be firmware bloat again
2025-03-17 16:57:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I didn't think those were a thing anymore
2025-03-17 16:58:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> look, General Mills has to cut costs somrhow
2025-03-17 16:58:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> at least as a Server WG rep, I'd probably say we should raise it to 2G
2025-03-17 16:58:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> look, General Mills has to cut costs somehow
2025-03-17 16:58:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2025-03-17 16:59:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, for now let's just say:
2025-03-17 16:59:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to poke server WG about investigating this one and/or bumping the target size
2025-03-17 17:00:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 17:00:23 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-17 17:00:30 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-17 17:00:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2349314) Keyring fails to unlock on startup
2025-03-17 17:00:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2349314
2025-03-17 17:00:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1774
2025-03-17 17:00:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, gnome-keyring, POST
2025-03-17 17:01:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this one's a bit awkward. there's an upstream proposed fix for the case of it I'm seeing in openQA, but it's not getting merged and i'm not sure why not. and also, Brandon Nielsen said that fix doesn't work for his version of the bug
2025-03-17 17:01:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, hmm.
2025-03-17 17:01:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess fairly soon i'll have to just backport the upstream fix, and then we can see if brandon can still reproduce, and if so, if anyone else can too...
2025-03-17 17:01:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I haven't had a chance to test the latest beta / compose
2025-03-17 17:02:06 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Maybe something has been miraculously fixed
2025-03-17 17:02:45 <@derekenz:fedora.im> I did rerpo this a few days ago
2025-03-17 17:03:03 <@derekenz:fedora.im> I did repro this a few days ago
2025-03-17 17:03:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> great!
2025-03-17 17:03:29 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Did you use Nextcloud, or a different account type?
2025-03-17 17:03:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> No cloud
2025-03-17 17:04:22 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I got this when raising a bug via abrt trying to save the API Key.
2025-03-17 17:05:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, okay. if lots of people are seeing it, i'll definitely backport the proposed upstream fix so we can see if that changes things
2025-03-17 17:07:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action adamw to backport the proposed (but somehow stalled) upstream fix for this so we can see if it changes how commonly folks are seeing cases of this problem
2025-03-17 17:08:50 <@tablepc:fedora.im> Back on bug 2352715 Just for grins I copied the config.xml to my home directory and in that directory I set it open with text editor and there were no problems at all. For further laughs I did a restart and started nautilus and set it to the root directory. I could open properties on a file and set the open with just fine. Some how this seems to have fixed the bug. I can't reproduce it at all
2025-03-17 17:09:39 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Probably some weird gremlin deep in the graphics stack
2025-03-17 17:09:40 <@tablepc:fedora.im> But really strange!
2025-03-17 17:09:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, does seem strange
2025-03-17 17:10:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd still file it upstream in case they can find something useful from the traceback
2025-03-17 17:10:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, mdadm, ASSIGNED
2025-03-17 17:10:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2325906) [live] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
2025-03-17 17:10:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
2025-03-17 17:10:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
2025-03-17 17:11:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this was waived to final
2025-03-17 17:11:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think what we need here is an mdadm developer...
2025-03-17 17:14:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> although it does seem to me that blivet/anaconda could probably work around it if we can't get anytihng out of mdadm
2025-03-17 17:14:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> just split the name on : or something
2025-03-17 17:16:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we are waiting on developers here. mdadm maintainer has not responded, this may need some poking. we might also need to consider working around the issue at anaconda/blivet level
2025-03-17 17:16:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1765
2025-03-17 17:16:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, plasma-welcome-fedora, NEW
2025-03-17 17:16:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2347292
2025-03-17 17:16:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2347292) The initial setup in KDE does not switch on third party repositories
2025-03-17 17:16:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo any thoughts on this?
2025-03-17 17:17:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka you were tagged to re-test this, can you do that?
2025-03-17 17:17:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nobody on the team can reproduce it
2025-03-17 17:17:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> yeah
2025-03-17 17:17:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> from what we can tell, it works fine... at least three of us have tried and we can't make the bug happen
2025-03-17 17:17:47 <@derekenz:fedora.im> could not repro
2025-03-17 17:17:55 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> on VM and baremetal
2025-03-17 17:18:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> rgr
2025-03-17 17:18:09 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Same
2025-03-17 17:18:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !action lruzicka to re-test this and either confirm it's fixed or provide a clear reproducer for KDE team
2025-03-17 17:21:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think that's the lot
2025-03-17 17:21:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2025-03-17 17:21:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2025-03-17 17:21:30 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I can do it.
2025-03-17 17:21:34 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> But not now.
2025-03-17 17:21:40 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Not from me
2025-03-17 17:21:47 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Not here
2025-03-17 17:22:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka sure, doesn't need to be right now
2025-03-17 17:22:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> before next meeting would be great
2025-03-17 17:22:26 <@tablepc:fedora.im> It's been enlightening. Have a Great Day!
2025-03-17 17:23:18 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> @derekenz:fedora.im++
2025-03-17 17:25:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks everyone! see you next time
2025-03-17 17:26:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting