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