<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:01:19
!startmeeting F42-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:22
Meeting started at 2025-04-07 16:01:19 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:22
The Meeting name is 'F42-blocker-review'
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:01:32
!hi
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:01:38
!topic Roll Call
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:02:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:06
Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:02:10
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:12
Lukas Brabec (lbrabec)
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:02:12
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:13
Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:02:15
who do we have here for our lovely weekly blocker review chat?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:02:36
and, more importantly, who wants to secretarialize?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:03:02
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:04
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:03:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:11
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:03:53
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:54
Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:04:38
Adam is away, in case you were wondering. It seems to be regular occurrence during release periods lately, I wonder... 🤔 ... he might actually not enjoy our company, or something!
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:04:51
I will
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:00
yay!
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:09
kparal has already given cookies to lbrabec during the F41 timeframe
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:14
!info lbrabec will secretarialize
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:17
derekenz has already given cookies to lbrabec during the F41 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:32
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to lbrabec. They now have 17 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:38
ok, let's start
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
Why are we here?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!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.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:58
!topic Introduction
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
today we have:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 5 Accepted Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 8 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 7 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 0 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:06:27
!info 2 Proposed Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:00
poor bot, it seems quite delayed
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:05
!topic Proposed Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:18
============================================================
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:18
============================================================
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:18
Proposed Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!topic (2355033) Fedora 42 beta unable to shutdown despite "No inhibitors"
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355033
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-5) (+augenauf, -boniboyblue, -derekenz, -geraldosimiao, -nielsenb, -lruzicka)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+boniboyblue, +asciiwolf, +nielsenb, +lruzicka)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:07:32
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1813
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:08:07
"Unable to shutdown" sounds serious
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:08:40
we weren't sure what to do about it last time, and not much changed since then
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:08:44
I think I run into this just now, unable to reboot, step 13 of scenario 1 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_desktop_user_switching
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:09:01
at the same time, I haven't seen too many people running around and being on fire
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:09:41
Lukas Brabec: oh, that's interesting. So any second user logged in means you can't reboot?
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:10:34
Think it depends on the application.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:10:52
gedit was one of the ones that it was affecting if I recall right.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:11:08
seems so, I didn't have time to investigate further, blocker meeting started. But the output in journalctl is the same as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355033#c1
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:11:23
So, you're hitting it on Linux? The reporter's environment is: "vm is in virtualbox on a W11 host"
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:11:39
in VM
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:11:51
I just quickly tested a second user in a VM and I could reboot just fine
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:11:57
even though user2 was logged in
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:12:09
I saw the warning, but reboot worked fine
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:12:29
the warning showed, but the reboot button didn't do anything
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:12:53
so, there had to be some other process that blocked it. Too bad that it doesn't show which one.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:54
so I said I haven't seen people complaining and then you just trigger this issue. You're not making our live easier, one could say!
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:14:23
But Lukas says, "I think I hit this issue just now" — I sense a hesitation ;-)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:14:30
I'm still probably leaning towards just documenting it, to be honest. It doesn't seem to happen that often, just in specific cases.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:15:51
it's a conditional violation of the criterion, as often is the case, and so far it doesn't seem too widespread (in a sense that the actual process isn't listed and you don't know how to resolve it)
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:16:22
FWIW, if it's not reproducible on a Linux host + KVM/QEMU guest I'd lower the priority of it.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:16:42
kashyapc: there's no relation to virtualization here
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:17:45
we discussed it in our last meeting, so we have more context. tldr: some processes (like dnf) get a reboot inhibitor and then you can't reboot or poweroff.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:18:11
Kamil Páral: Are you sure? Adam also asked about "what kind of VM" it is. Also see comment#9
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:18:12
for gui apps, they are usually listed, so you know which app is preventing reboot
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:18:19
(Yes, I saw the update from Lukas from the past blocker meeting)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:18:58
that was a long time ago 🙂 See the upstream ticket, there are more details in there
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:19:00
it seems to be the case, can reproduce it with gnome-text-editor and one user logged in and cannot with terminal app.. no indication of the cause in the warning dialog
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:19:26
In a VM?
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:19:37
Nod; I admit, I didn't see the full set of comments; just studying the issue.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:21:18
I'm still FB -1 myself.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:21:24
so, what do people think? this will happen to people from time to time. It doesn't seem to have traction in gnome usptream, unfortunately.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:22:21
Two different machines and VM's. Could not repro
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:22:35
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:22:35
Whatever is causing gnome-session to create the blocking shutdown inhibitor is probably not too important. It's probably just that some text editor with unsaved changes is a reliable way of triggering this.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:22:35
```
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:22:35
I just skimmed the upstream report, and yeah, I personally wouldn't call it a blocker. See Sebastian's comment:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:22:38
it's borderline for me, but until we see a more frequent use case (multi user setups would be a good one, but so far it worked for me in my tests), I'd not block on it
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
I just skimmed the upstream report, and yeah, I personally wouldn't call it a blocker. See Sebastian's comment:
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
```
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
Whatever is causing gnome-session to create the blocking shutdown inhibitor
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
is probably not too important. It's probably just that some text editor with unsaved
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
changes is a reliable way of triggering this.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:00
```
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
unsaved changes is a reliable way of triggering this.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
I just skimmed the upstream report, and yeah, I personally wouldn't call it a blocker. See Sebastian's comment:
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
```
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
Whatever is causing gnome-session to create the blocking shutdown inhibitor
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
is probably not too important. It's probably just that some text editor with
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:11
```
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:34
I agree with Kamil's assessment above.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:23:35
punt and see if we reliably run into it during RC testing?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:23:46
the major issue is that people won't know what to do when this happens, probably will force-poweroff the machine
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:23:49
I agree with Kamil's assessment above. Edit: on not blocking.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:24:45
Still leaning -1 but a punt would be ok.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:25:44
so I see mostly -1 votes, also in the ticket
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:25:53
We could document the workaround? "Make sure to close your editor and save changes?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:26:35
that's the easy part, when you know what blocks it. Of course we'll document it. The hard part is when it's a process that doesn't have a desktop icon assigned.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:28:02
Hmm, that does sound annoying
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:28:38
proposed !agreed 2355033 - Rejected FinalBlocker - This is a conditional violation of our poweroff criterion. We haven't found evidence that it would happen too frequently or in too many use cases. For that reason, we reject it as a final blocker. If there's new evidence that it's happening much more often, we can reconsider the blocker vote.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:28:39
also, it is could be solved by post release update, right?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:28:59
that's true for most bugs
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:29:23
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:29:28
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:29:30
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:29:33
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:05
!agreed 2355033 - Rejected FinalBlocker - This is a conditional violation of our poweroff criterion. We haven't found evidence that it would happen too frequently or in too many use cases. For that reason, we reject it as a final blocker. If there's new evidence that it's happening much more often, we can reconsider the blocker vote.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:15
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1835
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:15
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+5,0,-0) (+boniboyblue, +derekenz, +geraldosimiao, +nielsenb, +kparal)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:15
!info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:15
!topic (2357214) parted corrupts partition table during fixing when mdraids change their size
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:15
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357214
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:30:58
we have +5 already, but let's see if somebody has something more to add or discuss
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:31:21
this is a corruption scenario, which means it's quite concerning
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:31:57
if you remove a raid and create a new one with the same name, the old partition sizes seem to be used, instead of the new ones
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:32:02
so it can easily explode
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
16:32:30
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:32:35
I believe this should be a blocker
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:33:03
+1 final blocker
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
16:33:07
+1 fb
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:33:38
FinalBlocker +1 for me.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:33:43
+1 FB
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:34:16
+1
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:34:32
I haven't read the issue closely, I'll refrain from voting. I'll go with the votes of more clueful people here :)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:34:34
proposed !agreed 2357214 - Accepted FinalBlocker - This violates our criterion: "...installer must be able to: Correctly interpret, and modify ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions".
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:34:41
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:34:52
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:35:13
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:36:12
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:36:16
!agreed 2357214 - Accepted FinalBlocker - This violates our criterion: "...installer must be able to: Correctly interpret, and modify ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions".
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:36:34
those are all proposed blockers, let's move on
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:36:57
!topic Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:01
============================================================
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:01
Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:10
!topic (2356863) bluez-5.81-1.fc42 breaking BlueTooth
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:10
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356863
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:10
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+3,0,-1) (+geraldosimiao, +derekenz, +nielsenb, -adamwill)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:10
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1827
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:10
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, bluez, ON_QA
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:41
please note that originally this was proposed because we though the broken version was stable
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:37:50
it was never stable, only in updates-testing
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:38:05
so we don't need this update to fix some horrible bug
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:38:44
there are still some improvements in the latest update, but it seems like there's no need to push it stable asap, and instead keep users testing it for a while more
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:38:57
that's why Adam reverted his vote at the end, I believe
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:39:05
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1827#comment-964505
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:39:32
I'm -1 FE as well at this time, there's no strong reason to force-push this through freeze
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:39:47
agree, -1 fe
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:40:17
I'll agree with that.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:40:21
-1 FE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:41:53
what about geraldosimiao Derek Enz Brandon Nielsen who voted +1 originally?
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:42:33
-1 seems ok at this point
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:42:59
Meh +0
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:43:09
If it fixes only volume input controls, -1 FE makes sense to me. In my reading of "FE bug principles" on the wiki, the above bug doesn't violate any of those criteria.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:43:58
so that means it isn't broken in the media right now?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:04
It's not really necessary to be a fe
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:44:06
no
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:44:17
No, Kamil wrote above: it was never stable, only in updates-testing"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:44:17
well if it isn't broken, then -1 FE
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:17
It's not broken
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:44:19
well, yes, it's not broken on media 🙂
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:44:46
proposed !agreed 2356863 - Rejected FinalFreezeException - The broken version was never stable, and thus this update doesn't present any strong reason why it needs to be pushed through freeze. If such a reason appears, we can reconsider the vote.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:44:55
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:44:58
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:45:00
And even now the new build already is at this upgrade
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:45:04
Ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:45:24
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:45:53
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:14
!agreed 2356863 - Rejected FinalFreezeException - The broken version was never stable, and thus this update doesn't present any strong reason why it needs to be pushed through freeze. If such a reason appears, we can reconsider the vote.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:30
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:30
!topic (2356294) codeblocks-25.03 is available
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:30
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356294
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:30
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, codeblocks, ON_QA
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:46:30
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1820
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:47:01
this already has -2, and it seems there's no reason to push this through freeze. A 0-day update should be completely ok for this.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:47:54
-1 fe
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:47:55
Yeah
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:47:58
-1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:48:04
Zero day
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:48:30
proposed !agreed 2356294 - Rejected FinalFreezeException - codeblocks is not present on install media, and so there seems to be little sense in pushing this through freeze. F42 users will get this as a 0-day update.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:48:33
+1 0day
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:48:33
-1 Fe
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:49:28
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:49:52
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:50:24
ack
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:50:47
Aside: is it common here to use "zero day" to mean non-security updates as well? (I usually see that term only in context of security flaws.)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:51:35
!agreed 2356294 - Rejected FinalFreezeException - codeblocks is not present on install media, and so there seems to be little sense in pushing this through freeze. F42 users will get this as a 0-day update.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:52:53
kashyapc: we have the concept of a "0day blocker". We don't use it for FE in any particular way, but can use it for saying that an update will be available to users right at the release announcement.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:13
0day blocker here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Normal,_0-Day_and_Previous_Release_blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:24
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedora-obsolete-packages, ASSIGNED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:24
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1841
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:24
!topic (2302853) Obsolete packages that used to require Python 3.12 but are gone in Fedora 42
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:24
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302853
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:53:55
so, this got reopened from F41. I just pinged mhroncok whether it was intentional, but he doesn't seem to be online at this moment
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:54:23
it was approved in F41, but there's no justification, maybe it was just a mistake to keep the FE request
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:54:36
I'd probably just punt it at this moment, and ask for details
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:54:43
Yeah, I really didn't quite get this...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:56:42
proposed !agreed 2302853 - punt - This got reopened from F41, but it's not clear whether it was intentional to keep the FE request flag, or just a mistake. If this should go through freeze, please provide some justification details, thank you.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
16:56:45
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:56:52
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:58:08
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:17
!agreed 2302853 - punt - This got reopened from F41, but it's not clear whether it was intentional to keep the FE request flag, or just a mistake. If this should go through freeze, please provide some justification details, thank you.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:29
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1839
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:29
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357573
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:29
!topic (2357573) backport sha256 support for the libimobiledevice stack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:29
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-1) (+derekenz, +geraldosimiao, +asciiwolf, +adamwill, -nielsenb)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:58:29
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libimobiledevice, ON_QA
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:59:15
I think I might be +1 FE here, because connecting a phone to a Live image is a scenario that I can imagine, even though it might be rare
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:59:56
and hopefully this is quite self-contained, not affecting the rest of the OS
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:02:05
thoughts?
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:02:27
+1 FE
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:03:02
+1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:03:32
proposed !agreed 2357573 - Accepted FreezeException - Connecting a mobile device to a Live image is a scenario that we can imagine, even though it might be rare. We're accepting this assuming the change is only related to the library in question and not affecting the rest of the OS.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:03:38
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:03:44
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:04:15
ack
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:04:19
+1 it also seems to fix an outstanding regression.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:04:29
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:04:34
!agreed 2357573 - Accepted FreezeException - Connecting a mobile device to a Live image is a scenario that we can imagine, even though it might be rare. We're accepting this assuming the change is only related to the library in question and not affecting the rest of the OS.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:04:45
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mesa, MODIFIED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:04:45
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357471
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:04:45
!topic (2357471) Update mesa to 25.0.3
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:04:45
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1836
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:06
this was already accepted once, but a regression was discovered (actually detected by openqa), and so I've reset the vote
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:26
my suggestion is to punt it at this time, until the regression is fixed, and consider it then (if there's still time)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:06:02
regression: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1836#comment-964577
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:06:28
Punt
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:06:52
Punt +
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:06:55
1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:07:03
proposed !agreed 2357471 - punt - We'll wait until the regression is fixed, and then consider it again (if there's still time).
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:07:17
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:07:28
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:07:32
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:08:15
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:21
!agreed 2357471 - punt - We'll wait until the regression is fixed, and then consider it again (if there's still time).
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:42
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, rust-muvm, ON_QA
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:42
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-1) (+derekenz, +geraldosimiao, -nielsenb)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:42
!topic (2357704) Backport upstream bugfix
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:42
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357704
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:42
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1840
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:09:49
since this seems preinstalled on asahi, I'm OK with giving it +1 FE
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:10:52
FWIW, I thought an error when launching the Steam gaming platform on Asahi doesn't quite qualify for a FE. I might be wrong here
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:11:02
(I just read the upstream issue and the fix)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:12:36
we tend to give +1 FE if the fix doesn't seem high risk and it improves the default experience users get after a fresh installation. It's true that this is more lenient that our SOP document says.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:12:40
+1 FE sounds reasonable
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:12:41
Also, see: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1840#comment-964599
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:12:58
we tend to give +1 FE if the fix doesn't seem high risk and it improves the default experience users get after a fresh installation. It's true that this is more lenient than our SOP document says.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:13:31
yes, that's my reason for +1 FE
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:13:39
I see, sure.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:04
we would do the same if Steam was broken on a default installation of Workstation or KDE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:38
because new users (and reviews) will do exactly that, install the system and run their favorite apps
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:14:42
Yeah, that makes more sense to me, as these are not remixes.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:44
because new users (and reviewers) will do exactly that, install the system and run their favorite apps
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:14:48
I'd be happy with a FE +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:15:06
+1 Fe
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:15:13
the package in question doesn't seem to affect our blocking images
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:16:26
proposed !agreed 2357704 - Accepted FinalFreezeException - This seems helpful for Asahi and doesn't seem to affect our release blocking images, and so we approve this request.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:16:34
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:16:57
ack
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:17:18
Ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:17:29
!hi
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:31
!agreed 2357704 - Accepted FinalFreezeException - This seems helpful for Asahi and doesn't seem to affect our release blocking images, and so we approve this request.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:17:33
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:17:34
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:56
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1842
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:56
!topic (2357693) F42FailsToInstall: tepl (freeze exception to retire a leaf obsoleted noninstallable package)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:56
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357693
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:56
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, tepl, ASSIGNED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:56
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:18:12
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:18:23
Sumantro Mukherjee: please prepare, you'll go next 😉
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:18:43
I'm in an office waiting and I saw the meeting taking place
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:19:28
sure
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:19:31
I hate using a translator
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:19:35
we tend to give +1 FE to FTI, and there seems to be little risk here
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:19:38
+1 FE
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:19:59
+1 FE
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:20:16
FE +1
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:20:24
+1 fe
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:20:28
proposed !agreed 2357693 - Accepted FinalFreezeException - We try to fix FTI bugs before release, and this is low risk, therefore we approve the request.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:20:36
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:20:36
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:20:41
+ 1 fe
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:20:47
Ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:07
!agreed 2357693 - Accepted FinalFreezeException - We try to fix FTI bugs before release, and this is low risk, therefore we approve the request.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:21:07
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:20
those were all proposed FEs
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:24
phew!
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:33
😓
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:21:34
Phew!
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:49
!topic Sumantro's bug
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:21:55
if DOCUMENTATION_URL="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f42/system-administrators-guide/" in os-release is broken .. does it violate Check the contents of common release identification files, e.g. /etc/fedora-release and /etc/os-release in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_artwork_release_identification?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:58
Sumantro Mukherjee: you wanted to propose something?
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:22:20
more like ask .. i dont even know if this can be a blocker
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:22:25
by broken you mean it's 404?
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:22:32
yep
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:22:49
I think I raised this at the weekend: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357460
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:22:55
I see that page doesn't exist even for F41
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:23:59
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#self-identification
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:23:59
I would say that this **doesn't** violate this criterion:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:24:24
because it mostly looks whether the files identify as the correct fedora version
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:24:33
not whether documentation links work
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:24:55
are you aware of any other criterion that might be related?
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:25:50
no kamil, just this one stick out .. in 41 I did hit a 404 and it was very late and I didnt consider this big
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:25:53
I haven't found anything else related to documentation, except https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Final_Release_Criteria#Release_notes
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:26:23
my current opinion is that this is not a release blocker
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:26:32
make sense
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:36
This happens every release
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:26:47
Yeah, I don't think this qualifies for a blocker.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:27:13
any opposing opinions here?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:13
if not, we need to go through accepted blockers, but it should be fast
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:28:14
Nah - I didn't think it was blocker worthy when I first raised it.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:28:20
I doubt `/etc/os-release` is the place where people look for documentation :)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:36
!topic Accepted Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:39
============================================================
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:39
Accepted Blockers
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:44
!topic (2354798) "no usable disks" after re-creating MDRAID
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:44
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1809
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:44
!info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:44
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354798
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:29:09
this is currently waiting on anaconda devs to fix a follow-up bug to the reported one
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:29:31
I assume they're getting gray hair from all that mdraid
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:29:43
(same as me, when reporting them)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:29:58
I don't think we need to do anything here atm, just wait for a fix
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:30:40
(if you want to pause for a bit, just type anything, otherwise I'll go to the next one in a minute)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:23
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357270
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:23
!topic (2357270) fedora-release package need to be rebuild to include a series of changes for final F42 release
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:23
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1833
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:23
!info Accepted Blocker, fedora-release, NEW
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:51
this is trivial to fix, jnsamyak promised to make a new build soon
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:04
no further action from us needed
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:25
!topic (2356257) Can't open settings to adjust Bugzilla apikey
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:25
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356257
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:25
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1818
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:25
!info Accepted Blocker, gnome-abrt, NEW
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:33:19
we need to resolve this somehow, I suggested using the old UI for abrt, which was offered as an option from Michal Srb. I'll try to ping him to make sure he knows we're waiting for some action here.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:12
I just did
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:16
ok, let's go on
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:25
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1812
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:25
!info Accepted Blocker, libdnf, NEW
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:25
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:25
!topic (2354865) libdnf (DNF4) should read DNF5 repo overrides
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:36:08
I found the place to input my api key... But it really is a thrill
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:36:09
I think this will need to get waived as hard-to-fix, because the developers do not seem to be willing to fix it really fast (and might not be even feasible)
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:36:56
Yeah, you yourself anticipated as such here :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865#c7
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:36:59
Yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:02
Agreed
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:37:32
I have this bright moments sometimes...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:37:38
I have these bright moments sometimes...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:12
ok, let's go on
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:15
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:15
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:15
!info Accepted Blocker, mdadm, VERIFIED
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:15
!topic (2325906) [live] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:21
I verified the fix today
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:27
but more testing is of course welcome
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:38
so if you want to help out, more testing is welcome here
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:39:51
and that's all!
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:12
!topic Open Discussion <your bugs here>
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:23
do any have anything to bring up?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:30
do you have anything to bring up?
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:40:36
Nothing from me.
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:41:07
Happy to see the server image size bug fell out. :) thank you guys for everything you do!
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:41:19
Not from me
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:41:26
Kamil Páral: A quick question: I was asked in the RISC-V channel, "let me know if there'll be a slip of a week or so"
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:41:44
When will such a decision be made? At the "last go/no-go meeting", I assume?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:03
at this moment, we don't have a RC and we don't know whether we'll have it on time
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:27
Go/NoGo is on Thursday. If we don't have an RC before that, it's of course a NoGo
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:42:36
It's okay. Not a big deal. A slip gives us (in the RISC-V channel) time to test images and iron out bugs
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:45
if we discover a severe bug, it might also be a NoGo
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:42:52
Yep, noted. Thanks
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:42:52
Nope
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:59
but if we get anaconda and abrt fixes tomorrow, we can easily make it a Go
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:43:10
so, you'll know on Thursday 🙂
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:43:13
Yeah, indeed
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:43:39
Alright. That's a great answer; thanks
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:44:09
the official release is on Tuesday, following the Thursday's Go
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:44:33
at least I think it's Tuesday 🙂
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:44:46
ok, anything else?
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:45:38
nope
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:47:22
thanks everyone!
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:47:24
!endmeeting