2025-10-23 17:01:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !startmeeting F43 Final Go/No-Go meeting
2025-10-23 17:01:40 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-10-23 17:01:38 UTC
2025-10-23 17:01:40 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F43 Final Go/No-Go meeting'
2025-10-23 17:02:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-10-23 17:02:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:02:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2025-10-23 17:02:50 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:02:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Paul Whalen (pwhalen)
2025-10-23 17:03:18 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> !hi there
2025-10-23 17:03:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:03:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sorry, but Fedora Accounts user 'there' does not exist
2025-10-23 17:03:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
2025-10-23 17:03:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-10-23 17:03:40 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:03:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
2025-10-23 17:03:50 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> FYI, I have another meeting in an hour (with networking to work on our timeout issue).
2025-10-23 17:04:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> well we better make this a quick go then today :p
2025-10-23 17:04:09 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:04:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2025-10-23 17:04:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or a quick something
2025-10-23 17:04:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 17:04:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Purpose of this meeting
2025-10-23 17:05:01 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F43 Final is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
2025-10-23 17:05:37 <@smooge:fedora.im> The purpose is to say Thank you Aoife and we will miss you
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 1. Release candidate compose is available
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 4. Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 3. Test matrices are fully completed
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 2. No remaining blocker bugs
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info This is determined in a few ways:	
2025-10-23 17:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 17:05:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes!
2025-10-23 17:05:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> that is the secret 5th way Stephen J Smoogen :)
2025-10-23 17:06:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> So, without further ado - RC
2025-10-23 17:06:17 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 17:06:17 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current status - RC
2025-10-23 17:06:31 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I see we had 1.5 earlier, is this still the correct one?
2025-10-23 17:06:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have two! exceeding requirements by 100%
2025-10-23 17:06:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> possibly!
2025-10-23 17:07:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have 1.5 and 1.6. the difference is that 1.6 has a fix (I hope) for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405872 . but it came quite late
2025-10-23 17:07:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we are such overachievers.
2025-10-23 17:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (by which i mean '7 hours ago')
2025-10-23 17:07:51 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Well done everyone, hopefully its not in vain :D
2025-10-23 17:08:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Which one will we proceed with to verify for release readiness?
2025-10-23 17:08:44 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> 1.6
2025-10-23 17:08:48 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I guess
2025-10-23 17:09:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:09:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info We have RC-1.6 available and will review this for release readiness
2025-10-23 17:10:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, i would say we can consider both, depending on the next bit of the meeting
2025-10-23 17:10:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ack ack
2025-10-23 17:11:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info under review, we have two RCs. We will consider RC-1.5 and RC-1.6 for release readiness
2025-10-23 17:11:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current status - blockers
2025-10-23 17:11:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 17:11:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/43/final/buglist
2025-10-23 17:11:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info This section will be led by Fedora QA
2025-10-23 17:11:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hiiii!
2025-10-23 17:12:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so let's look at the proposed blockers
2025-10-23 17:12:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> :passes reins while wagon is rolling:
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2003
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, mbedtls, MODIFIED
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-3) (+lruzicka, -leigh123linux, -adamwill, -derekenz)
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +derekenz)
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2405239) CVE-2025-54764 mbedtls: Mbedtls timing attacks in RSA operations [fedora-41]
2025-10-23 17:12:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405239
2025-10-23 17:12:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i poked into this one somewhat in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405239#c3
2025-10-23 17:13:09 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Although the newer one is the same as the old one with a verified fix, so why not stick to that?
2025-10-23 17:13:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> at least as I understand the issue, i'm fairly sure it is not practically speaking a problem. mbedtls is only on the blocking images because librist requires it, librist is the only thing that uses it. librist, AFAICT, only uses AES. and the vulnerabilty is described as only affecting RSA.
2025-10-23 17:13:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička because it's not in either of the RCs so if we make this a blocker we have to slip.
2025-10-23 17:13:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh wait
2025-10-23 17:13:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i misread you
2025-10-23 17:13:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Yeah, -1 blocker, +1 FE I guess.
2025-10-23 17:14:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička well, we'll get to that in a bit, i'll explain then
2025-10-23 17:14:08 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I meant the French fix. Sorry, my connection is laggy due to wind.
2025-10-23 17:14:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička you're using RFC 2549 and it's blowing your pigeons off course?
2025-10-23 17:14:39 <@jlinton:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:14:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jeremy Linton (jlinton)
2025-10-23 17:14:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička you're using RFC 1149 and it's blowing your pigeons off course?
2025-10-23 17:15:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička are you still +1 on this?
2025-10-23 17:16:10 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Kamil said that this is not an important security risk, so I guess I am not.
2025-10-23 17:17:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so we're at -4. any other votes?
2025-10-23 17:17:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> -1
2025-10-23 17:19:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2405239 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as our evaluation is that nothing in Workstation or KDE actually uses the vulnerable RSA code, thus there is no practical "security bugs of 'important' or higher impact" that cannot be resolved with an update
2025-10-23 17:19:21 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:20:15 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:20:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any more acks
2025-10-23 17:21:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> you can have mine if it counts :)
2025-10-23 17:21:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:21:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-10-23 17:21:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2405239 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as our evaluation is that nothing in Workstation or KDE actually uses the vulnerable RSA code, thus there is no practical "security bugs of 'important' or higher impact" that cannot be resolved with an update
2025-10-23 17:21:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> all acks are ackcepted!
2025-10-23 17:21:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-6) (+pbrobinson, +derekenz, +asciiwolf, +lruzicka, -kparal, -adamwill, -nielsenb, -sgallagh, -geraldosimiao, -leigh123linux)
2025-10-23 17:21:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2402621) [abrt] gnome-session: __syscall_cancel_arch(): gnome-session-service killed by SIGABRT after systemd timeout during initial install.
2025-10-23 17:21:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402621
2025-10-23 17:21:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
2025-10-23 17:21:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1995
2025-10-23 17:22:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Robinson are you around?
2025-10-23 17:23:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this one got a bit complex, because there's a few moving parts. my best understanding is that the crash occurs pretty much always, but in most cases does not appear to have any practical consequences. (it looks to me like a crash during shutdown after g-i-s is done). pbrobinson suggested the crash might somehow be the reason his pinebook pro doesn't reach a desktop, but there's no obvious causative mechanism there, and he hasn't yet provided logs in the separate bug I created - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405144
2025-10-23 17:23:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also i realize now my attempt to propose that as a blocker failed. sigh. doing it now
2025-10-23 17:23:52 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> hey, I actually have a o6 now...
2025-10-23 17:24:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the crash itself doesn't appear to be hw dependent
2025-10-23 17:24:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i saw it in the vm installs i did for other reasons yesterday
2025-10-23 17:24:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but I don't *think* anyone has yet demonstrated a consequence of the crash beyond 'it shows up in logs if you go looking for it'
2025-10-23 17:24:39 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> No body, no murder.
2025-10-23 17:24:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> correct me if i'm wrong
2025-10-23 17:25:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, I have not seen any here, but haven't looked. Things all appear to work.
2025-10-23 17:25:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you'll only find this in the journal or maybe if you run abrt and look at system (rather than user) crashes
2025-10-23 17:25:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and i think it only happens once, after g-i-s runs on first boot after intsall
2025-10-23 17:26:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> again, if i'm wrong, yell :D
2025-10-23 17:26:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> You're not wrong (as far as I know), but can we yell anyway?
2025-10-23 17:26:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure!
2025-10-23 17:27:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i have a void here you can yell into if you like
2025-10-23 17:27:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 😱
2025-10-23 17:27:40 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> that's what the abyss is for
2025-10-23 17:28:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, -1 Blocker here from me.
2025-10-23 17:28:21 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> -1 FB
2025-10-23 17:28:28 <@jlinton:fedora.im> I noted in ticket that its still in 1.6RC
2025-10-23 17:28:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, i just wanna confirm it shows up in an x86_64 VM install too (and also causes no obvious consequences0
2025-10-23 17:28:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, i just wanna confirm it shows up in an x86_64 VM install too (and also causes no obvious consequences)
2025-10-23 17:29:17 <@derekenz:fedora.im> That said FB 0
2025-10-23 17:31:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think we're at +2 / -8, then
2025-10-23 17:32:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I remain -1 for a Final Blocker and I'm honestly leaning towards -1 Freeze Exception as well (in the event we respin)
2025-10-23 17:32:55 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Frankly, the systematic failures are more concerning IMHO than the actual failure at this point. The inability for the default installed user to see the failure, and the length of time.
2025-10-23 17:33:07 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Frankly, the systematic failures are more concerning IMHO than the actual failure at this point. The inability for the default installed user to see the failure, and the length of time its been there.
2025-10-23 17:33:56 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, would be nice to make that better, but it's not something we should block release on if it's not causing actual issues...
2025-10-23 17:34:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so yeah, i just literally watched this happen, it is the instance from g-i-s, it crashes after you've already reached the desktop of the created user, can't see that it has any practical consequence
2025-10-23 17:34:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's just a teardown failure
2025-10-23 17:35:27 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Such behaviour can be easily fixed with a regular update, I think. No need to block on this if it does not harm anybody, or we do not have any logs, or we do not have any fix.
2025-10-23 17:35:43 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Maybe, without a clear diagnosis I wouldn't go that far it could be something nefarious for all we know at this point.
2025-10-23 17:36:09 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Maybe, without a clear diagnosis I wouldn't go that far it could be something nefarious, and systemd is just timing out an killing it, for all we know at this point.
2025-10-23 17:36:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2402621 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected on the basis it does not violate any criteria and does not seem to have any significant practical consequences. pbrobinson's pinebook pro failure is currently tracked separately, will come up later in the meeting
2025-10-23 17:36:40 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Ack
2025-10-23 17:36:41 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-10-23 17:37:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:37:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2402621 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected on the basis it does not violate any criteria and does not seem to have any significant practical consequences. pbrobinson's pinebook pro failure is currently tracked separately, will come up later in the meeting
2025-10-23 17:37:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405144
2025-10-23 17:37:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
2025-10-23 17:37:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2005
2025-10-23 17:37:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2405144) GNOME login prompt does not appear on Pinebook Pro
2025-10-23 17:37:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so this is the pbrobinson pinebook pro failure i split out of the previous bug to try and provide clarity
2025-10-23 17:38:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> unfortunately he has not provided any info or logs yet
2025-10-23 17:38:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> per https://forum.pine64.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=114 , pinebook is not exactly a hive of buzzing activity, and none of it refers to fedora on page 1
2025-10-23 17:39:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Punt (which is effectively a -1 for the purposes of this specific meeting?
2025-10-23 17:39:24 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Punt (which is effectively a -1 for the purposes of this specific meeting)?
2025-10-23 17:40:04 <@derekenz:fedora.im> We do need more info
2025-10-23 17:40:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are some references to pinebook on discussion.fp.o. not a whole lot. mostly old.
2025-10-23 17:40:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/search?q=pinebook
2025-10-23 17:40:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think we can legitimately punt at this meeting
2025-10-23 17:40:34 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Ok with a Punt
2025-10-23 17:40:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there does ultimately have to be a decision one way or the other before we make a go/no-go decision
2025-10-23 17:40:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> punt is only valid when we have somewhere to punt *to* that happens before this meeting
2025-10-23 17:41:08 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Nevermind
2025-10-23 17:41:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since we made arm hw coverage a subjective thing in this cycle, and i am sick of this whole forest-of-SBCs mess, i am voting -1
2025-10-23 17:41:52 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2025-10-23 17:41:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
2025-10-23 17:41:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik all we know for now is 'peter said he tried an install on a pinebook and it didn't get to a desktop'
2025-10-23 17:41:58 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I'm -1 as well.
2025-10-23 17:42:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, -1 blocker here. :( Sad if that particualr hardware is broken, but...
2025-10-23 17:42:12 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yeah agreed Adam
2025-10-23 17:42:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402621#c22 is literally all the info we're working with
2025-10-23 17:43:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Fine, based on what we know *right now*, I'm -1 to block on it.
2025-10-23 17:43:40 <@Lihis:matrix.org> !hi
2025-10-23 17:43:42 <@zodbot:fedora.im> No Fedora Accounts users have the @Lihis:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
2025-10-23 17:45:03 <@Lihis:matrix.org> !hi
2025-10-23 17:45:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Tomi Lähteenmäki (lihis)
2025-10-23 17:45:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2405144 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker on the basis that the report is lacking sufficient details to make an evaluation, and now ARM hardware coverage is handled as a subjective evaluation, our subjective evaluation is that we're not sufficiently worried about the Pinebook Pro to hold up the release while we wait for details to show up
2025-10-23 17:46:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's that
2025-10-23 17:46:10 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Ack
2025-10-23 17:46:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-10-23 17:46:32 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:46:43 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:46:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack, though it seems like we could have stopped at "the report is lacking sufficient details" :)
2025-10-23 17:47:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well...i was thinking, if this bug was 'raspberry pi 4' we might be more inclined to want to block the release and wait...or test live...or whatever
2025-10-23 17:47:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the significance of the platform does play into it for me
2025-10-23 17:47:30 <@derekenz:fedora.im> right
2025-10-23 17:47:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so wanted to encapsulate that
2025-10-23 17:47:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2405144 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker on the basis that the report is lacking sufficient details to make an evaluation, and now ARM hardware coverage is handled as a subjective evaluation, our subjective evaluation is that we're not sufficiently worried about the Pinebook Pro to hold up the release while we wait for details to show up
2025-10-23 17:48:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> I also want to bring up this bug, though it's technically an accepted blocker, in the 'proposals' block, because we accepted it very quickly in order to do rc-1.6
2025-10-23 17:48:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2405872) Installing KDE Live with French keyboard layout results in US layout at decryption prompt and console (due to invalid "KEYMAP=fr (oss)" in vconsole.conf)
2025-10-23 17:48:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, anaconda-webui, VERIFIED
2025-10-23 17:48:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2004
2025-10-23 17:48:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2405872
2025-10-23 17:48:35 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> -1 FB
2025-10-23 17:48:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info this is technically 'accepted', but we treated that as a provisional decision and I'd like the group to consider it
2025-10-23 17:48:58 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> For the last one, +1 FB
2025-10-23 17:48:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the significance here is that if we accept this as a blocker, we can only ship 1.6 or slip
2025-10-23 17:49:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we cannot ship 1.5
2025-10-23 17:49:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I was +1 blocker to it, still am unless something new came up
2025-10-23 17:49:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah this seems sufficiently blocker-y to me
2025-10-23 17:49:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we reject this as a blocker, we could ship 1.5
2025-10-23 17:49:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička: Could you be more specific? I can't tell what you were voting on each time
2025-10-23 17:49:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am still +1, though. i just wanted to make sure nobody can criticize us for hasty blocker decisions
2025-10-23 17:49:53 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> So, the this French one, I am seeing as +1 FB.  The previous was -1 FB
2025-10-23 17:49:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Still +1
2025-10-23 17:50:04 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> It is raining and windy :D
2025-10-23 17:50:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> btw, if anyone didn't read the whole bug, this actually affects far more than french. it will affect more keyboard layouts than it *won't* affect.
2025-10-23 17:50:59 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I'll go FB +1 - might as well since we've already fixed in 1.6
2025-10-23 17:51:07 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I am calling it French, because it is reported against French. It was happening on German and Czech, too.
2025-10-23 17:51:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2405872 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - provisional accepted blocker status is confirmed by wider vote
2025-10-23 17:51:54 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:51:57 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:52:01 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:52:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw:For the record, what is the criterion in violation
2025-10-23 17:52:07 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2025-10-23 17:52:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw:For the record, what is the criterion in violation?
2025-10-23 17:52:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, just found it in the BZ now
2025-10-23 17:52:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, we have an explicit criterion for this
2025-10-23 17:53:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Final_Release_Criteria#Keyboard_layout_configuration
2025-10-23 17:53:22 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> FinalBlocker +1
2025-10-23 17:53:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2405872 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - provisional accepted blocker status is confirmed by wider vote
2025-10-23 17:53:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so let's also start the 'accepted blocker checkin' portion of the meeting with this one
2025-10-23 17:54:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the fix i did here is a bit dumb and depends on a couple of assumptions, but it *should* be good
2025-10-23 17:55:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i tested at least several random and popular layouts seem to work, and i also tested it seems to behave correctly on the encryption screen and i didn't break workstation afaik
2025-10-23 17:56:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> There were also some other success reports in the bug.
2025-10-23 17:56:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's definitely not what we want as a long-term fix but I *think* it should be good enough for f43 kde. it basically just does the same 'xkb specifier -> converted kbd filename' transformation we do in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kbd/blob/rawhide/f/kbd.spec#_140 when we're *creating* the converted xkb layouts for kbd
2025-10-23 17:57:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it won't work if you pick a non-ASCII capable layout with a variant, because we don't keep those converted layouts. but if you pick one of those you've got bigger problems, and we can't solve everything for f43, practically
2025-10-23 17:58:00 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> No need to. We have already confirmed it today.
2025-10-23 17:58:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have grander plans for f44 and later, but those changes turned out to be clearly not ready to go in f43 yet (we had a very optimistic plan to stuff them in over the weekend but it didn't work out)
2025-10-23 17:58:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info testing so far indicates the duct-tape fix for this in RC-1.6 should hold together sufficiently
2025-10-23 17:59:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2394213) default hostonly-mode "sloppy" results in significant increase in initramfs size
2025-10-23 17:59:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, dracut, ON_QA
2025-10-23 17:59:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1925
2025-10-23 17:59:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394213
2025-10-23 17:59:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> checking in on this one as it's ON_QA, but I think the data from the bug (thanks Petr) indicates we've probably done as much as we practically can on this one
2025-10-23 17:59:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone have concerns?
2025-10-23 18:01:22 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> image sizes are much more reasonable with the latest dracut AFAICT
2025-10-23 18:03:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-10-23 18:03:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info based on the data in recent bug comments, it seems like we've done as much as we practically can here
2025-10-23 18:03:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info all other accepted blockers are listed as VERIFIED so we will not check them individually
2025-10-23 18:04:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ...and i think that concludes the blocker portion
2025-10-23 18:04:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> exciting!
2025-10-23 18:04:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with the decisions made, all blockers are addressed in RC-1.6, but not in RC-1.5.
2025-10-23 18:04:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I have one possibly-contentious point to raise.
2025-10-23 18:04:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (New topic)
2025-10-23 18:05:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Can I info that @adam?
2025-10-23 18:05:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> O
2025-10-23 18:05:14 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> nope
2025-10-23 18:05:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> before Stephen Gallagher blows this up
2025-10-23 18:06:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's wait for stephen to blow it up first :D
2025-10-23 18:06:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> unless it's not on the blocker topic?
2025-10-23 18:06:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'd like to raise the fact that we have a KDE major release currently headed to stable the moment we declare "Go", which effectively would invalidate all the KDE testing. Are we collectively okay with this?
2025-10-23 18:06:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which update are you referring to?
2025-10-23 18:06:51 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 6.5.0
2025-10-23 18:07:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> specifically, what bodhi update?
2025-10-23 18:07:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> One moment
2025-10-23 18:07:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ceb91cc9d5
2025-10-23 18:07:57 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ~250 packages on a major feature upgrade
2025-10-23 18:08:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I know that KDE has a blanket approval for releasing mid-maintenance stream for Fedora, but having it as a 0day makes me a little hesitant.
2025-10-23 18:09:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info with the decisions made, all blockers are addressed in RC-1.6, but not in RC-1.5
2025-10-23 18:09:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher that update is in rc-1.5 and rc-1.6
2025-10-23 18:10:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see https://pagure.io/releng/issue/13013#comment-990354 and https://pagure.io/releng/issue/13013#comment-990502
2025-10-23 18:10:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Oh, I must have missed that.
2025-10-23 18:10:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it had an FE - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2403248
2025-10-23 18:11:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> OK, that makes me a lot more comfortable.
2025-10-23 18:11:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry for the noise.
2025-10-23 18:11:57 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Hurray!
2025-10-23 18:12:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we also put gnome 49.1 in
2025-10-23 18:12:52 <@amoloney:fedora.im> And no worries, better to have asked and be sure than let it go unsaid and it be something that was accidentally overlooked
2025-10-23 18:13:35 <@amoloney:fedora.im> with the blockers addressed, we will head to the next part of the festivities
2025-10-23 18:13:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current status - test matrices
2025-10-23 18:13:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 18:13:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_43_Test_Results
2025-10-23 18:14:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> coverage is surprisingly good for a candidate that came out like 8 hours ago
2025-10-23 18:14:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Can we confirm that sufficient test coverage is in place for RC-1.6?
2025-10-23 18:14:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks a lot to everyone who tested
2025-10-23 18:15:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the only significant thing we're missing is the workstation desktop tests on aarch64 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_43_RC_1.6_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_aarch64
2025-10-23 18:15:06 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I just filed a bug for a really annoying issue I encountered in ptyxis 49, not sure if it's "bad enough" though ...
2025-10-23 18:15:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we did have those done for RC-1.4, but that had gnome 49, not 49.1
2025-10-23 18:15:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so ideally we'd have them redone. but, since 49.0 was fine and 49.1 is fine on x86_64, it's *probably* okay...
2025-10-23 18:15:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Jeremy Linton did you get time to do a bit of smoke testing at least of workstation in rc-1.5 or rc-1.6 ?
2025-10-23 18:15:51 <@jlinton:fedora.im> i filled it out, maybe I didn't hit submit
2025-10-23 18:15:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> link?
2025-10-23 18:15:54 <@jlinton:fedora.im> hehe
2025-10-23 18:15:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh hah
2025-10-23 18:16:05 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> TL;DR: haunted terminals ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2406072
2025-10-23 18:16:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Thematically appropriate for Halloween!
2025-10-23 18:16:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> easy fix: only have one terminal window
2025-10-23 18:16:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I wish
2025-10-23 18:17:00 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Weird, one of these days I will learn to use a computer I guess.
2025-10-23 18:17:17 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Mostly was a copy of the "tested with rc 1.4" but I did boot and fill out a few of the gnome ones for 1.6
2025-10-23 18:17:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: Silly question: are they invisible or maybe just resized to 0x0? Does the fullscreen keyboard shortcut reveal them?
2025-10-23 18:18:05 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> good question. the Alt-Tab / Alt-^ switcher shows them, but with blank window previews.
2025-10-23 18:18:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Jeremy Linton if you can re-do the wiki changes it'd be great
2025-10-23 18:18:32 <@jlinton:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_43_RC_1.6_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_aarch64
2025-10-23 18:19:04 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> so they appear as *listed* but it doesn't look as if they can get focus, so no fullscreen keyboard shortcut
2025-10-23 18:19:09 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Now i'm confused because it shows that I filled it out there.
2025-10-23 18:19:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh
2025-10-23 18:19:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Do you want me to set the topic to reflect that theres a few live, last-minute testing happening?
2025-10-23 18:19:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's definitely not showing it here
2025-10-23 18:19:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure
2025-10-23 18:19:52 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Ok, I filled out the wrong column, user error 
2025-10-23 18:20:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ahhh
2025-10-23 18:20:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did wonder about that, heh
2025-10-23 18:20:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Some tests are underway live during the meeting for Workstation on aarch64. The meeting will resume shortly with a conclusion for test coverage for RC-1.6
2025-10-23 18:20:15 <@jlinton:fedora.im> I filled out all the x86 ones
2025-10-23 18:20:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i should move all your x86_64 results to aarch64?
2025-10-23 18:21:27 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> it looks like that :D
2025-10-23 18:25:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Jeremy Linton you said desktop notifications is failed with bug reference 1222418 - i think that's a typo?
2025-10-23 18:25:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in fact you referenced that bug in error_checks and printing, sorry
2025-10-23 18:25:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, it makes sense for printing but not error checks?
2025-10-23 18:29:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, i moved all your results across
2025-10-23 18:29:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> think i got it right
2025-10-23 18:29:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i'd say coverage looks pretty good now!
2025-10-23 18:29:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do we want to consider fabio's bug?
2025-10-23 18:30:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'd go -1 on it if we were voting, honestly
2025-10-23 18:30:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> basic terminal functionality is ok, the bug is annoying but can be fixed with an update
2025-10-23 18:30:30 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah that's fine, just wanted to mention it
2025-10-23 18:30:52 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I sent a screenshot in a thread, it looks hilarious though
2025-10-23 18:31:03 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Oh, I just moved them too.
2025-10-23 18:31:22 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Weird I didn't get any conflicts.
2025-10-23 18:32:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> mediawiki doesn't do conflicts. it just goes ahead and writes whatever you sent
2025-10-23 18:33:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i guess we can move on?
2025-10-23 18:34:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info The meeting has resumed following some last minute testing. We will now determine if there is enough test coverage to proceed with the Go/No-Go
2025-10-23 18:35:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> So are we happy with what we've got on RC-1.6, testing wise now?
2025-10-23 18:35:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I am happy :D
2025-10-23 18:35:42 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Yes, something is not quite right with the markup+results, but yes, the bug is on the wrong line, probably because of a slight markup error 
2025-10-23 18:36:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, you literally referenced the bug twice
2025-10-23 18:36:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Test_Results:Fedora_43_RC_1.6_Desktop&diff=prev&oldid=755214
2025-10-23 18:36:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney i would say yes
2025-10-23 18:37:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> As Tester-Extroardinaire, Im inclined to take Adam at his word and status this part and move on to part 4
2025-10-23 18:38:37 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Yes, but the rendering is not 'fail' either, i'm tweaking it.
2025-10-23 18:38:55 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info There is sufficient test coverage in place for RC-1.6 for F43 Final. We will continue to release readiness check with CoreOS and IoT
2025-10-23 18:39:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Fedora CoreOS / IoT check-in
2025-10-23 18:39:19 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> IoT is ready 
2025-10-23 18:39:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> dustymabe: how goes Fedora CoreOS?
2025-10-23 18:39:49 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Is it ready?
2025-10-23 18:40:00 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> Yep!
2025-10-23 18:40:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Some day I will change this script to ask 'Is it secret? Is it safe?'
2025-10-23 18:40:43 <@jflory7:fedora.im> (I have a very short, quick announcement to make at the end of the meeting if there is time)
2025-10-23 18:40:43 <@jflory7:fedora.im> ❗️
2025-10-23 18:40:43 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 
2025-10-23 18:40:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora CoreOS and Fedora IoT have confirmed release readiness
2025-10-23 18:41:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Justin Wheeler: yeah we have an open floor for the last few mins once voting and status is done
2025-10-23 18:41:28 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Go/No-Go decision
2025-10-23 18:41:51 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info I will now poll FESCo, Releng and QA for a Go or No-Go decision
2025-10-23 18:41:57 <@amoloney:fedora.im> FESCo?
2025-10-23 18:42:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> go. 🏎️
2025-10-23 18:42:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Go
2025-10-23 18:42:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Releng?
2025-10-23 18:42:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> also go
2025-10-23 18:42:23 <@amoloney:fedora.im> QA?
2025-10-23 18:42:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> go
2025-10-23 18:42:28 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Go
2025-10-23 18:42:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !agreed Fedora Linux 43 Final is GO
2025-10-23 18:42:54 <@amoloney:fedora.im> 	
2025-10-23 18:42:54 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora Linux 43 Final will release on the current target date 2025-10-28
2025-10-23 18:42:55 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 🎆
2025-10-23 18:42:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 🥳
2025-10-23 18:42:58 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 🎉
2025-10-23 18:43:08 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !action @amoloney to announce decision
2025-10-23 18:43:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and we're releasing RC-1.6, just to be clear.
2025-10-23 18:43:54 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ack, will make sure thats in the release announcement email 🫡
2025-10-23 18:43:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ok, go for it nirik , the damage is now done anyway
2025-10-23 18:44:02 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> So my small note was that 1.6 has no UKI image... it failed compose... not a blocker, but just to note.
2025-10-23 18:44:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> everything else is in the 1.6 compose?
2025-10-23 18:44:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I believe Justin Wheeler also had something to bring up?
2025-10-23 18:44:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Fabio Valentini: yep.
2025-10-23 18:45:07 <@jflory7:fedora.im> If the real business is done 🙂 
2025-10-23 18:45:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> does the no-UKI image note need to go to the release day coordination room? Is that something we need to note on a website/release note?
2025-10-23 18:45:42 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes, and I will note it there. ;)
2025-10-23 18:45:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thank you muchly :)
2025-10-23 18:46:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !action nirik  to note the absence of the UKI image in 1.6 compose over in the release day coordination room
2025-10-23 18:46:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2025-10-23 18:46:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> go for it Justin Wheeler !
2025-10-23 18:46:56 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !info The Flock Organizing Team is making an open call for feedback on the CFP themes for Flock 2026 to the four governance bodies of Fedora. Since this meeting is a collection of many folks who are in these bodies, this is a request to please take the following issues/tickets back to your respective committees for discussion. The deadline is Tuesday, 11 November 2025.
2025-10-23 18:47:03 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/545
2025-10-23 18:47:03 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://gitlab.com/fedora/mindshare/home/-/issues/86
2025-10-23 18:47:03 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3493
2025-10-23 18:47:03 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/epel/issue/353
2025-10-23 18:47:13 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Link spam 🫣
2025-10-23 18:47:16 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Sorry for that.
2025-10-23 18:47:28 <@jflory7:fedora.im> That's all!
2025-10-23 18:47:35 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Yay F43! 🥳
2025-10-23 18:48:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ack, thanks for sharing! :)
2025-10-23 18:48:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Are there any other topics folks want to bring up?
2025-10-23 18:49:00 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Not from me. 
2025-10-23 18:49:44 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-545-request-for-review-of-flock-2026-cfp-themes-by-2025-11-11/169779
2025-10-23 18:49:57 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Maybe that link too, because we definitely don't have too many places in Fedora to have the same conversation 😛 
2025-10-23 18:50:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Jef Spaleta: will be at the helm for F44 Beta and Final meetings, fyi, and I will see you all for F45
2025-10-23 18:50:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> with nothing else, Ill close it out and thank you again everyne for your tireless efforts releasing F43!
2025-10-23 18:51:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ON TIME 🎉
2025-10-23 18:51:14 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> all the best Aoife Moloney! 💓
2025-10-23 18:51:31 <@amoloney:fedora.im> The early is always just a bonus target ;-)
2025-10-23 18:51:34 <@jflory7:fedora.im> O captain, my captain! See you after a while Aoife 🙂 
2025-10-23 18:51:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thanks all, cya in a few months!
2025-10-23 18:51:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !endmeeting