#blocker-review:fedoraproject.org log

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:00:25

!startmeeting F44-blocker-review

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:27

Meeting started at 2026-03-02 17:00:25 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:28

The Meeting name is 'F44-blocker-review'

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:00:32

!topic Roll Call

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

17:00:44

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:45

Jaroslav Groman (jgroman)

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:00:52

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:52

Petr Sklenar (psklenar)

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:00:58

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:00:59

Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)

<@azuma:pawb.social>

17:02:41

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:02:42

John Agee (azuma) - he / him / his

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:02:55

sigh, the matrix lag hasn't disappeared

<@aggraxis:fedora.im>

17:03:02

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:03

Paul Maconi (aggraxis) - he / him / his

<@aggraxis:fedora.im>

17:03:30

I'm observing from work and will be distracted. I'm just watching for awareness. :(

<@azuma:pawb.social>

17:06:53

Is there a link somewhere to this meeting or is it all done here? I'm new to this process

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:06:59

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:01

Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:07:07

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:08

Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:09:49

How many non-observing people are here today, 'cause Adam is not coming.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:10:25

I'm non-observing

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:10:55

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:10:56

Derek Enz (derekenz)

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:11:05

if there's no other fesco people present I can non-observe :D

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:12:02

Kind of here

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:12:22

The bug list is not very long, there are actually 3 proposed blocker from which one has been fully fixed already, and two are punts from last time. Also, we have 4 proposed FEs. The question is, do we have a quorum and do we want to take decisions right now.

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:12:41

Hi, we're seeing the high latency on the matrix, I suggest we cancel today’s meeting and update bug statuses.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:13:58

I am not sure we should, however, as there is a Go/No go meeting on Thursday, if me checking calendar is correct.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:16:42

What do you think, Fabio Valentini ?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:16:50

and Brandon Nielsen ?

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:18:02

Sounds ok to me

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:18:40

The one punt has a "fix" in testing now, just waiting on karma, the other appears highly hardware specific.

<@osama-albahrani:matrix.org>

17:18:49

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:18:51

Osama Albahrani (osalbahr)

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:19:19

sorry folks, my matrix.org account is lagging heavily, I see messages with random 1-15 minutes delay. Can't participate today.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:19:27

Ok, let's go voting. We are no cowards.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:19:35

YOLO

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:19:48

anyone can take over and use the admin commands to lead the meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:20:00

I nominate Lukáš Růžička

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:20:10

or we can all vote in tickets instead

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:20:41

feel free to do as you wish and I'll learn the outcome in another 15 minutes 😄

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:24

I think we should go voting. If we cannot decide, then we can punt and vote in the tickets.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:30

Ready for the boilerplate?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!info The bugs up for review today are available at:

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!info We'll be following the process outlined at:

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!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.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

Why are we here?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!topic Introduction

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:21:40

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 2 Accepted Blockers

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 16 Accepted Freeze Exceptions

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 3 Proposed Blockers

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

As the situation stands we have a couple of blocker to discuss.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:22:48

!info 0 Accepted Previous Release Blockers

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:11

!topic Proposed blocker

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!info Proposed Blocker, anaconda-webui, VERIFIED

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+adamwill, +derekenz, +kparal)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!topic (2442593) Anaconda crash reporter passes incomplete information

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2055

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +lruzicka)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:23:29

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2442593

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:24:11

The last comment in the bug implies this is fixed in RC1.2?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:24:19

!hi

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:24:25

The first of the blockers is about Anaconda not uploading all the information from the WebUI form. Currently, this has been fixed and verified in RC1.2

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:24:27

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:24:32

Hi, Neal

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:25:20

so fixed and verified in RC1.2 means it was included in the RC but the update is not yet stable?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:26:20

This means that the fix is part of the RC, so I believe that it is "stable".

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:27:24

If you download RC1.2 and you will experience Anaconda crashing, you will be able to report it without issues.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:27:29

this is not stable yet: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-48bfc8a951

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:27:39

which is what the FE is for?

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:27:57

I really don't see how throwing away part of the report isn't a violation of the criteria cited in the ticket: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Failure_reporting

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:28:30

Cut and dry blocker to me, fortunately it's already fixed

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:28:45

I also think that it is a blocker.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:28:59

FinalBlocker +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:29:09

FinalBlocker +1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:29:28

FinalBlocker +1

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:29:39

but ... it's nominated as a Beta Blocker?

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:29:50

Good call

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:29:53

BetaBlocker +1

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:29:56

FinalBlocker +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:30:05

Fabio Valentini: yes, because it violates a basic criterion.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:30:46

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Failure_reporting

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:30:50

(I was just confused why people were voting for it as a FinalBlocker ...)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:31:20

oops, sorry. My brain just copied Brandon's path.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:31:24

it hasn't been pushed to the repos yet

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:31:25

BetaBlocker +1

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:31:25

Because it's Monday

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:31:33

I'm confused how it's in an image without being pushed

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:31:33

anyway ; fixed & verified rpm is part of beta 1.2: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/44/Fedora-44-20260228.0/compose/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/a/anaconda-webui-66-2.fc44.noarch.rpm

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:31:47

compose magic ✨️

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:32:14

Well, no idea, to be honest :D

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:33:15

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13244#issuecomment-561744

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:33:16

compose link from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_44_Beta_1.2_Installation

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:33:44

yeah but that's supposed to be a push!

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:34:15

nope, RC composes and updates composes are handled separately

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:34:21

for better or worse ...

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:34:23

RCs often have builds which are not pushed stable yet. That's by design.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:34:43

(hopefully I'm in the realtime discussion right now)

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:34:44

Ok where are we now? lol

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:35:01

Anybody wants to vote against this to be a beta blocker?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:35:14

we push it after it's verified to be working

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:35:26

If you voted FinalBlocker, you should revote BetaBlocker because that's actually what we're discussion, I made an whoopsie

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:35:42

Sure, let's revote!

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:35:44

Ah I see sorry

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:35:49

BetaBlocker +1

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:35:57

BetaBlocker +1

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:35:59

BetaBlocker +1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:36:00

BetaBlocker +1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:36:17

Yay thats better

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:36:34

!proposed agreed We believe this bug significantly impairs the problem reporting functionality in Anaconda. Therefore, we pronounce it a blocker bug.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:37:12

aye!

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:37:19

patch

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:37:27

ack

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:37:31

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:37:39

!proposed agreed We believe this bug significantly impairs the problem reporting functionality in Anaconda's webUI. Therefore, we propose it as a blocker bug.

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

17:37:40

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:37:56

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:38:12

eh ... propose a proposed blocker bug to become a proposed blocker bug?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:38:59

aaarghhh

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:39:28

.me sends coffee

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:39:36

!proposed agreed We believe this bug significantly impairs the problem reporting functionality in Anaconda's webUI. Therefore, we pronounce it a blocker bug.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:39:53

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:39:53

ack :)

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:40:02

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:43:01

Derek, are you still typing?

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:43:42

Nope

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:43:48

Ok. Thanks.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:43:50

! agreed We believe this bug significantly impairs the problem reporting functionality in Anaconda's webUI. Therefore, we pronounce it a blocker bug.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:02

!agreed We believe this bug significantly impairs the problem reporting functionality in Anaconda's webUI. Therefore, we pronounce it a blocker bug.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:56

Ok, let's move to the next one:

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:59

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2048

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:59

!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+adamwill, +derekenz, +kevin)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:59

!info Proposed Blocker, ibus, VERIFIED

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:59

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439813

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:44:59

!topic (2439813) KDE network installs hang during scriptlets (%triggerin on ibus)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:45:54

This was already accepted as a Freeze Exception, pushed to updates-testing for F44, landed in Rawhide, and testers confirmed KDE netinstall works again; the update is now VERIFIED.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:46:16

Can we just move on as it's VERIFIED, or do we need to vote it?

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:46:40

With KDE and netinstall being a blocking combination, I feel like it has to be a blocker if we vote it

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:47:28

I am not sure, but something tells me that we should know if this is a blocker or not for future reference. Gosh, I'd need an Adam-bot around here.

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:13

```

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:13

Lukáš Růžička: (I'm a bit late here), but see Adam's comment#20: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439813#c20

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:13

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:13

```

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:13

"Since there are criteria issues around accepting this as a blocker, but we have a fix/workaround now, I'm proposing it as an FE so we can get the fix in without worrying about the criteria."

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:48:20

For clarify: If it's a blocker, it will be included in an RC1.3, if it's not, RC1.2 might be shipped without it?

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

the fix in without worrying about the criteria."

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

Lukáš Růžička: (I'm a bit late here), but see Adam's comment#20: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show\_bug.cgi?id=2439813#c20

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

```

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

```

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

"Since there are criteria issues around accepting this as a blocker, but

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:48:30

we have a fix/workaround now, I'm proposing it as an FE so we can get

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:49:29

I'll go Adam's intuition here, as a Freeze Exception. He's done gory analysis with backtrackes and whatnot

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:50:13

I think that Fabio has a point. It this is a blocker, it can't go without the fix.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:50:16

we agreed last time that it's not a blocker unless criteria are adjusted

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:50:22

!hi

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:50:22

I have a ticket to start that discussion

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:50:24

Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:50:27

but hasn't, yet

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:50:58

ok, in that case, let's vote again, because last time it was PUNTED and afaik no criteria have been adjusted, haven't they?

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

17:51:12

It looks like that's why ("issues around accepting it as a blocker") Adam proposed it as a Freeze Exception?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:51:13

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/tickets/issues/881

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:51:20

well, maybe I'm paraphrasing wrong

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:51:25

Actually, looking at criteria more, this isn't as slam dunk of a beta blocker as I thought, and really not even necessarily a final blocker

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:51:29

Huh

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:51:33

read the ticket description

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:52:01

BetaBlocker -1

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:52:04

I guess we can safely reject this for Beta at this moment, and consider it for Final if needed

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:52:32

Agree, revisit for final if criteria get adjusted

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:53:14

Ok, BetaBlocker -1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:53:51

BetaBlocker -1

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:54:34

BetaBlocker 0

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:54:38

BetaBlocker -1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:54:41

~_~

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:55:17

!proposed agreed We reviewed this issue and agreed that, at this time and under the current criteria, it does not qualify as a release-blocking problem. Therefore, we are rejecting it as a release blocker. If needed, it can be re-proposed later as a Final Blocker.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:55:30

BetaBlocker 0

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

17:55:32

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:55:36

ack

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:55:37

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:55:41

aye

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:55:46

I don't love this but I can't argue myself to +1, but I definitely disagree with -1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:55:54

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:56:28

Shall we then repropose it right away, Conan Kudo ?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:56:30

I'd say just move it to a proposed Final blocker right away

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

17:56:50

fyi bug says that 'Verified' fix is in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d8b30d5a3b; which is part of **beta1.2 now:** https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/44/Fedora-44-20260228.0/compose/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/i/ibus-1.5.34~beta1-3.fc44.x86_64.rpm

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:56:55

yes

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

17:57:19

Lets do this

<@kparal:matrix.org>

17:57:25

(you should also include a bug number in the `!agreed` line, just saying)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:57:59

!proposed agreed 2439813 We reviewed this issue and agreed that, at this time and under the current criteria, it does not qualify as a release-blocking problem. Therefore, we are rejecting it as a release blocker. We are deferring further discussion and will reconsider it later as a potential Final Blocker.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

17:58:05

thanks

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:00:45

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:01:08

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:01:34

ack

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:03:03

ack

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:03:18

Ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:03:35

!agreed 2439813 We reviewed this issue and agreed that, at this time and under the current criteria, it does not qualify as a release-blocking problem. Therefore, we are rejecting it as a release blocker. We are deferring further discussion and will reconsider it later as a potential Final Blocker.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2047

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

!topic (2441941) Graphics break when trying to type LUKS password

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

And now the final of the proposed blockers, rather itchy for Dell XPS 13 users.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +psklenar)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2441941

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:04:52

!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:05:21

This one is looking increasingly hardware specific to me

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:06:01

so far this one affects just one user we know of

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:06:05

It probably is, because I have not seen it on any computer I own. I do not have a Dell device.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:06:19

Adam posted a call for testing to Discussion

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:06:26

I have an old XPS 13 ... I could try updating to F44 🙃

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:06:38

So its a Dell thing

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:06:43

at this moment this looks unfit for a FinalBlocker imo

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:06:44

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:07:57

is the model popular?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:08:02

because if it is, that's blockery enough

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:08:14

Yeah, if someone else can't reproduce it on other hardware, then yes. Otherwise, it's probably hard to justify for Beta as a blocker, IMHO

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:08:20

I'd punt this. If more people don't shout about the same issue, we know this is very limited in scope.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:08:44

kashyapc: we're now in Final blockers section

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:09:38

Makes sense Kamil

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:10:01

we are?

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:10:07

Punt

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:10:11

Kamil Páral: we are still in Beta blockers. The app shows it is reported against Beta

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:10:30

There are two more Final Blockers proposed.

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:11:00

Yeah, we're still in the BetaBlockers; so it is Kamil Páral who needs to wake up ;-)

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:11:44

Maybe he'll be in sync by the time he sees this message :D

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:12:08

what? You said:

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:12:08

> And now the final of the proposed blockers, rather itchy for Dell XPS 13 users.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:12:08

However, may I extrapolate that if it is unfit for FinalBlocker (as Kamil says), it is also unfit for the BetaBlocker?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:12:15

ahhh

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:12:24

I read it too quickly 😄

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:12:29

The final one of the proposed Beta blockers :D

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:12:31

Heh, "final" of the proposed (Beta) blockers

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:12:51

don't use the final word when it's not appropriate! 😄

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:13:10

I know this meeting is quite tricky for exact wording :D

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:13:16

Not-yet-final blocker?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:13:20

quite certain of it at this moment

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:13:20

BetaBlocker -1

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:13:46

I voted +1 on the app thinking it is more reproducible, but I'll go adjust it to -1...

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:13:49

BetaBlocker -1 sounds good to me

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:13:50

we can again just shuffle this under Final

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:14:17

proposal: move under proposed final

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:14:28

and punt this time, wait for more data

<@kashyapc:fedora.im>

18:14:50

(Actually, I didn't hit send on my said above comment) But yes, agreed

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:16:39

!proposed agreed 2441941 Given that the reported bug has so far manifested only on a specific hardware model, and we are not aware of any additional reports confirming it on other devices, we believe it does not qualify as a Beta blocker. We therefore propose to revisit and discuss it later as a potential Final blocker.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:16:54

ack

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:17:01

ack

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

18:17:13

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:17:16

ack

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:17:24

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:17:39

!agreed 2441941 Given that the reported bug has so far manifested only on a specific hardware model, and we are not aware of any additional reports confirming it on other devices, we believe it does not qualify as a Beta blocker. We therefore propose to revisit and discuss it later as a potential Final blocker.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:19:00

So now, we have covered all proposed Beta blockers.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:19:25

!topic Proposed Freeze Exceptions (Beta)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:19:55

Sure, have a nice time.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:20:00

!topic (2440346) bluetoothctl broken in 5.86

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:20:00

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, bluez, ON_QA

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:20:00

!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:20:00

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2063

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:20:00

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440346

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:21:11

In bluez 5.86, the bluetoothctl list command no longer displays the local Bluetooth controller and returns empty output, whereas it works correctly in 5.85. The issue affects both Fedora 43 and 44.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:21:11

An upstream fix is under discussion; as a temporary workaround, running echo list | bluetoothctl restores the expected behavior. Updates containing a fix (bluez-5.86-4) were submitted for Fedora 43 and 44, pushed to updates-testing for both releases, and have since been released as stable for Fedora 43. The issue was proposed as a Freeze Exception for Fedora 44 Beta due to broader Bluetooth impact.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:21:11

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:22:18

if the corresponding F43 update is already stable this looks like a fine FE+1 to me

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:22:40

does this also affect GUI tools?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:22:53

e.g. gnome or kde when connecting BT devices

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:23:15

In Beta 1.2 it works as expected

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:23:34

For KDE

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:23:39

I am not sure, I could see my BT in Gnome.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:24:05

Works in Gnome too

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:24:11

It seems to purely by a CLI thing

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:24:25

I tested the update on F44 and it seems to fix what it claims to fix

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:24:42

Ok, seems like a save FE +1 for me.

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:24:49

it seems as iissue in cmd tool; as there is workaround: echo list | bluetoothctl

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:25:43

I'm a bit worried that this might break something that's currenty working (GUIs), and the cmdline tool is unlikely to be used on Live images?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:26:06

but I don't have a strong opinion, just noting

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:26:37

+1 FE is fine, Adam doesn't need to take it in if it seems risky

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:27:16

+1 FE as well

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:27:23

BetaFE +1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:27:25

powerdevil doesn't use bluetoothctl

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:27:29

bluedevil doesn't use bluetoothctl

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:27:31

BetaFE +1

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:27:43

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bluez/c/e94cc90 looks quite self-contained

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:28:21

Already voted FE +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:28:53

!proposed agreed 2440346 This issue significantly degrades Bluetooth functionality in bluez 5.86 by breaking standard `bluetoothctl` usage, affecting common workflows and multiple use cases. A fix is already available and low risk, and given the user-visible regression introduced during the freeze period, we propose accepting this as a Freeze Exception to restore expected Bluetooth behavior in the Beta release.

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:29:15

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:29:17

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:29:18

ack

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:29:24

ack

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

18:29:28

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:29:35

!agreed 2440346 This issue significantly degrades Bluetooth functionality in bluez 5.86 by breaking standard bluetoothctl usage, affecting common workflows and multiple use cases. A fix is already available and low risk, and given the user-visible regression introduced during the freeze period, we propose accepting this as a Freeze Exception to restore expected Bluetooth behavior in the Beta release.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:29:55

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443827

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:29:55

!topic (2443827) libsoup3 package provides mingw directories under /usr

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:29:55

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2065

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:29:55

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libsoup3, MODIFIED

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:30:19

oh this one. it's not bad but it's ugly 😬

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:30:59

Oh nice. Yeah, I would like to see this land I think.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:31:37

the fact that mingw packages don't seem to clean up after themselves when removed is maybe a different discussion ...

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:32:07

BetaFE +1 for me

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:32:29

BetaFE +1

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:32:29

BetaFE +1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:32:45

Seems there is already a fix

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:32:52

FE +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:33:28

!proposed agreed 2443827 Accepted as a Freeze Exception because the current build permanently creates unintended MinGW directory trees in the main package due to incorrect `%find_lang` ordering. Although not functionally blocking, the issue causes persistent filesystem pollution that RPM will not automatically clean up. The fix is trivial, low risk, and already prepared, and accepting it now prevents further user impact during Beta.

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:33:33

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:33:35

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:33:49

ack

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

18:34:08

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:34:16

!agreed 2443827 Accepted as a Freeze Exception because the current build permanently creates unintended MinGW directory trees in the main package due to incorrect %find_lang ordering. Although not functionally blocking, the issue causes persistent filesystem pollution that RPM will not automatically clean up. The fix is trivial, low risk, and already prepared, and accepting it now prevents further user impact during Beta.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:35:01

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spirv-headers, NEW

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:35:01

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2057

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:35:01

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2442986

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:35:01

!topic (2442986) Freeze exception for Vulkan SDK (required by LLVM 22)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:35:01

!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-1) (+nielsenb, -adamwill)

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:37:33

BetaFE -1

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:37:47

looks like this "problem" could easily be solved by tagging the missing build into the LLVM 22 side-tag.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:38:13

hmm, Adam seems against it. But since LLVM 22 is an approved change by fesco, clearly saying they'll request a Beta exception, it seems to me that we should honor it.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:38:48

When do they want to apply for the FE, when there is a decision to make in 3 days.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:38:54

why? it's not necessary

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:39:24

if they don't apply, then they miss it. Or they apply too late, and they only get it if we slip. But that's not our problem.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:39:54

I feel like they've already missed it since it's not here for us to discuss, and a candidate compose is under testing

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:39:57

but Fabio is probably correct - put it into LLVM side tag, and then proposed a FE with both together

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:40:32

Which may be Adams point

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:41:29

BetaFE -1

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:42:44

-1 is ok with me

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:43:12

yeah I'm going with Fabio here

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:43:16

BetaFE -1 as-is

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:43:32

I'm fine with rolling it into some nebulous future FE

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:43:36

BetaFE -1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:43:40

Ok.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:45:33

!proposed agreed 2442986 We are not granting a Freeze Exception just for the purpose to support a potential future LLVM 22 Freeze Exception at this time, particularly since no coordinated request covering the full LLVM 22 stack has been formally presented for review and a candidate compose is already under testing. If LLVM 22 is proposed and accepted as a Freeze Exception later, the related dependencies can be considered together in a single, coherent request.

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:45:39

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:45:45

ack

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

18:45:54

ack

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:46:15

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:46:47

!agreed 2442986 We are not granting a Freeze Exception just for the purpose to support a potential future LLVM 22 Freeze Exception at this time, particularly since no coordinated request covering the full LLVM 22 stack has been formally presented for review and a candidate compose is already under testing. If LLVM 22 is proposed and accepted as a Freeze Exception later, the related dependencies can be considered together in a single, coherent request.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:47:34

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2066

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:47:34

!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xdg-desktop-portal, NEW

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:47:34

!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440238

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:47:34

!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+derekenz)

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:47:34

!topic (2440238) First start of xdg-desktop-portal sometimes times out, delaying apps start in Workstation Live by 45 seconds

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:47:56

BetaBlocker +1

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:48:20

this one I added just to make sure we have it on our lists. There's no fix yet, Adam is trying it find one. I want it to be approved in case we slip or find it very soon.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:48:32

if the fix turns out too risky, we don't need to pull it in

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:48:50

Conan Kudo: did you mean BetaFE?

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:49:02

FE +1 from me

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:49:06

yeah sorry

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:49:08

BetaFE +1

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:49:14

BetaFE +1

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:49:15

Yeah I think its an FE sorry

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:49:45

BetaFE +1

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:50:12

Ok, then

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:50:26

!proposed agreed 2440238 Accepted as a Freeze Exception because this issue causes a significant, user-visible delay during first boot of the Workstation Live image, with core applications and the Welcome dialog blocked for approximately 45 seconds. Although intermittent, the regression directly impacts perceived system responsiveness and can affect automated testing.

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

18:50:49

ack

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

18:50:52

ack

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

18:50:58

ack

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

18:51:01

ack

<@jgroman:fedora.im>

18:51:10

ack

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:51:21

!agreed 2440238 Accepted as a Freeze Exception because this issue causes a significant, user-visible delay during first boot of the Workstation Live image, with core applications and the Welcome dialog blocked for approximately 45 seconds. Although intermittent, the regression directly impacts perceived system responsiveness and can affect automated testing.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:52:40

All right, folks. These have been the Beta blockers and FEs in its entirety. I suggest we leave the proposed Final Blockers to a ticket vote as we are not under pressure here.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:53:54

agreed

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:54:05

thanks for chairing, Lukáš Růžička

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:54:20

kparal has already given cookies to lruzicka during the F43 timeframe

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:54:25

derekenz gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 39 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:54:34

Thanks for your patience.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:54:39

decathorpe gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 40 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:54:55

do we have a secretary?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:55:26

!info We are leaving the Final Blockers to the ticket vote.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:55:44

We do not have a secretary, anyone to become chargé d’affaires

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:55:45

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:58:07

Noone? Even if I try to make a pussy face with weepy eyes?

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:58:59

So I guess it will be me then.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

18:59:17

!info lruzicka will secretarialize.

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:59:24

sorry, I'm trying to manage kids here

<@kparal:matrix.org>

18:59:32

but if needed, I can do it tomorrow

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

19:00:07

I can do it, Kamil. Focus on your managerial work.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

19:01:34

Anyway, if Adam was here, he'd go over the accepted stuff and comment on it. I do not feel that kind of strong and knowledgeable to give you the overview here. Let's have Open Floor and if someone wants to discuss anything, they can.

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

19:01:40

!topic Open Floor

<@nielsenb:fedora.im>

19:02:15

Nothing from me

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

19:02:38

nothing from me

<@derekenz:fedora.im>

19:02:56

Nothing here. Just trying to finish Beta 1.2 tests

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

19:03:52

Ok. In that case, thank you very much for coming, everybody and thank you for making Fedora stand out.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:04:16

osalbahr gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 41 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:04:20

aggraxis gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 42 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle

<@psklenar:fedora.im>

19:05:02

Lukáš Růžička: thanks for being moderator

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:05:05

psklenar gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 43 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle

<@lruzicka:fedora.im>

19:05:25

!endmeeting