<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:22
!startmeeting F44-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:23
Meeting started at 2026-04-20 16:00:22 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:23
The Meeting name is 'F44-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:25
!topic Roll Call
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:00:43
!hi
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:00:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:00:56
Brandon Nielsen: Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
16:01:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:04
Conan Kudo 🥴: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:05
Christopher Boni: Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:01:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:07
kashyapc: Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
<@jgroman:fedora.im>
16:01:12
!hi
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:01:16
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:16
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:18
hi hi everyone
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:23
Jaroslav Groman: Jaroslav Groman (jgroman)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:29
Jocelyn Gould: Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:29
adamw: Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:01:55
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:56
Lukáš Růžička: Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
<@blackcrack:fedora.im>
16:01:57
oh nice, thy :) Hi :)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:02:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:07
Fabio Rodrigues Ribeiro UTC -3: Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:02:22
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:23
Derek Enz: Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:02:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:52
Petr Sklenar: Petr Sklenar (psklenar)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:39
alright, let's get some exciting boilerplate going
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
16:03:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:44
Fabio Valentini: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
<@chenzy:matrix.org>
16:03:48
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!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.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:52
No Fedora Accounts users have the @chenzy:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:09
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:14
!info 3 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:14
!info 4 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:18
!info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:18
!info 9 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:21
who wants to secretarialize?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:04:24
I do
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:07
thanks!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:13
!info Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:26
let's get started with:
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:05:28
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:30
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:31
Kamil Páral: Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +loquser, +nielsenb, +derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!topic (2442617) tss user is missing before initrd-switch-root.target
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2116
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2442617
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!info Proposed Blocker, dracut, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:08
with the latest comment, i'm definitely -1 on this
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:23
from the reporter: "Clevis worked for me without any issue despite of `Failed to resolve group 'tss': Unknown ` in journald. Just messages in journald were annoying."
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:07:12
I'm -1 FB/+1 FE.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:39
eh, i'm kinda 0 on FE, i don't see why it can't just be a post-release fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:50
remember the *default* should be -1 FE, we need a reason to give +1 FE, it's not a consolation prize
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:08:37
I agree that this one can be a post release fix, it doesn't seem to actually affect anything working
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:08:48
FinalFE -1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:08:56
Yeah Im good either way
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:09:05
FinalFE -1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:09:16
FE 0
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:09:18
Given this statement: I'm -1 FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:28
proposed !agreed 2442617 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as it's clear from comment 21 that this does not actually violate the cited criterion. FE vote left open as vote count is inconclusive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:37
(i think FE vote is now +2 / -4 or so)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:11:52
blocker -1 FE -1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:11:53
ack
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:11:57
Ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:11:58
ack
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:12:01
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:12:03
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:06
oh, well, if I vote -1 FE we can patch to:
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:12:08
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:43
proposed !agreed 2442617 - RejectedBlocker (Final) RejectedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as it's clear from comment 21 that this does not actually violate the cited criterion. It also doesn't seem to warrant FE status; it's not terribly severe and can be addressed sufficiently as a post-release update
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:12:57
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:12:58
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:13:04
Ack
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:13:09
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:13:12
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:13:18
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:21
!agreed 2442617 - RejectedBlocker (Final) RejectedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as it's clear from comment 21 that this does not actually violate the cited criterion. It also doesn't seem to warrant FE status; it's not terribly severe and can be addressed sufficiently as a post-release update
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-4) (+loquser, -augenauf, -adamwill, -nielsenb, -derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!topic (2459430) Fedora 44 has power_save on for the wifi NIC RTL8852BE which makes internet slow on affected laptops.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+3,0,-2) (+nixuser, +asciiwolf, +loquser, -augenauf, -nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2459430
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2120
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:36
!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:42
(i'm leaving the awkward one till last)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:08
-1 blocker, this is an annoying issue on one wifi chip, if we blocked on those we'd still be on...whatever the last RH release without wifi support was
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:15:53
Reading the bug live right now, my non-deep reaction is, it is -1 on both counts FB-1, and FinalFE-1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:16:08
-1 blocker
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:16:10
yeah... slow != unusable
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:16:13
-1
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:16:14
Can the power_save be swtiched off easily?
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:16:17
"Using a vpn fixes the issue too probably by keeping the NIC awake."
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:16:18
Yeah leaning FE -1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:16:19
if it was dropping out or busted entirely that's a different issue
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:16:27
-1 FE -1 FB
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:16:52
if it can be shown to affect a significant portion of common hardware, then we can re-evaluate
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:17:34
5 Megabits per second is enough to track down a workaround
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:17:38
the wireless chip is common enough, but that doesn't change the fact none of us can fix it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:18:02
and indeed, it still works even if it is garbage tier
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:18:06
This should not be a problem with the install, as it would keep the power alive for the downloads, and can easily be fixed with a kernel update
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:14
proposed !agreed 2459430 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a non-fatal (but annoying) issue on a single wifi chip is clearly below the threshold in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues? (if we blocked Fedora releases on annoying issues on single wifi chips, we'd never release anything). FE status left open as votes are split for now
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:18:21
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:18:23
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:18:27
ack
<@jgroman:fedora.im>
16:18:27
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:18:28
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:18:28
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:18:41
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:41
in my day we would've *killed* for 5Mb/s wifi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:04
heck, in my slightly earlier day I'd have inflicted severe bodily harm for an ISDN line
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:20
!agreed 2459430 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a non-fatal (but annoying) issue on a single wifi chip is clearly below the threshold in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues? (if we blocked Fedora releases on annoying issues on single wifi chips, we'd never release anything). FE status left open as votes are split for now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:55
ok, those were the easy ones! now for the fun one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455924
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2097
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,1,-3) (+pstourac, +asciiwolf, +psklenar, +loquser, augenauf, -geraldosimiao, -derekenz, -nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+5,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +augenauf, +derekenz, +nixuser, +nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:56
!topic (2455924) ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 13: black screen when typing LUKS password
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:10
i was secretly hoping we'd get a clearer picture on this over the weekend, but...yeahnah.
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:21:02
Is this happening on any othersystems that we've heard of?
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:21:12
It is happening on all manner of systems
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:21:19
And in different ways
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:22:02
I will have such a laptop in day or two, but it seems there are already all info in the bz
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:22:03
I am curious as to Marks suggestion
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:22:12
I think ultimately there is no one "it" bug.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
16:22:16
(I have only Gen 12; no Gen 13. Can't test it yet)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:22:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:22:52
geraldosimiao: Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:22:54
This seems very much though like a fix isn't coming from kernel, but more likely plymouth and/or dracut
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:03
do we not put graphics drivers in the initramfs?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:08
i...sort of assumed we did
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:22
Conan Kudo 🥴 ought to know
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:36
(if he's feeling better. the smiley seems...somewhat upgraded?)
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:24:00
I had assumed as much myself, we certainly put the firmware in. I was wondering if dracut changes might have stopped that
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:24:33
It went from a Lv3 sickness smiley to a Lv1 sickness smiley. That's like, Neal's Defcon levels 🤣
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:26
isn't there a generic 'stick every loaded module in there'?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:32
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1894968 Dec 31 1969 usr/lib/modules/6.19.13-300.fc44.x86_64/kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915.ko.xz
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:32
```
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:32
[adamw@omnibook boot]$ lsinitrd ./ostree/fedora-9f27f6785d330e1b960235fd3f4488bf20f2777f5e1d9e80e8546d133575be25/initramfs-6.19.13-300.fc44.x86_64.img | grep drm/i915
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:32
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 31 1969 usr/lib/modules/6.19.13-300.fc44.x86_64/kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/i915
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:32
```
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:45
granted, i'm on silverblue
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:26:37
we do on generic initramfs images
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:26:49
for hostonly ones, we do only if we detected they were loaded at runtime
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:54
I don't see it on mine
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:27:10
Yeah, amdgpu is in my initramfs as well. So I am guessing Mark was debugging someone else's issue
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:27:34
FYI, I had this issue on my laptop one. I forgot what argument I added specially for this, but my custom args right now are `plymouth.use-simpledrm=1 amdgpu.abmlevel=0` and I feel like the 2nd one was the one I added
<@kepstin:kepstin.ca>
16:27:35
i've tweaked my probably-affected system to use simplefb and not include gpu drivers in the initramfs which seems to avoid this problem :/
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:27:54
FYI, I had this issue on my laptop before. I forgot what argument I added specially for this, but my custom args right now are `plymouth.use-simpledrm=1 amdgpu.abmlevel=0` and I feel like the 2nd one was the one I added
<@kepstin:kepstin.ca>
16:27:56
i've tweaked my probably-affected system to use simpledrm and not include gpu drivers in the initramfs which seems to avoid this problem :/
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:28:23
for my laptop I have `plymouth.use-simpledrm=0` to avoid this problem
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:28:40
Maybe it was the same here
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:29:13
I have a Framework 16 w/ AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 w/ Radeon 890M btw
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:29:46
yeah I have the previous gen Framework 16
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:29:51
Conan Kudo 🥴: according to the bug, that would do nothing as plymouth explicitly disables simpledrm already if LUKS is in use
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:30:00
similar IGP
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:12
i'm pretty sure simpledrm is used by default if you *don't* have encryption, and disabled by default if you *do* have encryption
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:30:19
I have hte i915 module in my initramfs
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:30:26
Lemme see, I'm on the laptop right now ill go disable both args and reboot
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:30:28
that was only the case in the past six months, I've had this in place for over a year
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:29
so flipping it either way can 'help' with early boot graphics depending on whether you have encryption, and whether simpledrm is good or bad on your hw
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:30:32
I have hte i915 module in my initramfs I'm on F44 Workstation
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:30:47
adamw: Yes, but several users are saying in the bug that enabling simpledrm in plymouth fixes the problem
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:30
simpledrm has been a black screen for me since early in Fedora 42
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:40
regardless of luks
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
16:32:20
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:32:22
Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): Paul Maconi (aggraxis) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:00
sure, that makes sense for the bug since the bug is about LUKS. but we explicitly *dis*abled it for Reasons(tm) too, so just re-enabling it seems like a questionable choice
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:20
of course, we could decide the problems we've seen since disabling it for LUKS installs are worse than the problems that made us disable it, i guess
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:48
in a vacuum i'd much prefer we have the same default for luks/non-luks cases, having both paths be the 'default' just gives us twice the possible problems (see "linux is not about choice")
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:34:15
is there any commonality in the affected machines (ie. just intergragted GPU vs Discrete GPU)?
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
16:34:18
Right, nevermind the firmware bloat boottime issues with having to decompress/etc and missing firmware etc.
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
16:34:33
Its largly a mistake just on that basis to try and load those drivers that early
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:34:35
more hz displays, >60hz
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:16
we seem to have various little groupings, as best I can tell
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:27
high refresh rate laptop displays (on intel?) is one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:32
nvidia hybrids is another
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:38
AMD dells seems to be another (group of two)
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:36:17
Yeah seems its not doing it anymore but I installed a dGPU in my laptop so that might've "fixed" it
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:36:17
nvidia hybrids are typically intel for the default, though there are a few with amd
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:36:22
Means it's semi widespread. I don't have anything that has a higer than 60hz refresh rate...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:39:33
It looks like we can't do much more unless plymouth/simpledrm/etc developers get involved
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:15
i'm still finding it hard to reason about whether it's a blocker :|
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:32
and if so, *what* is a blocker? one or more of the vaguely-identified subsets? all of them?
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:42:09
It is common to think there is no display during the LUKS password stage. so all
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:42:12
Based on Conan Kudo 🥴 saying there were issues with F42 in this domain as well, it doesn't really feel too blockery to me
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:42:16
I really don't like it though
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:43:26
I don't like it either (as a luks user) but I also think that while it's semi wide spread, It's a small subset of users. The system still works, you just can see what you're doing at that stage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:08
yeah, the whole 'is this worse than before? on which subsets?' question we haven't even really got into yet
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:44:43
For me, the problem is that if you do not see what is there, it can be a problem to type the LUKS password on machines which use two keyboard layouts for example. How do I know that the correct one is selected?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:53
i sort of feel like i'd like to try just re-enabled simpledrm by default on LUKS installs and see where that gets us. but it's very late to do that :| two weeks before beta would've been a great time
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:45:01
*releasing butterfly meme.jpg* "is this, is this a blocker?"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:20
you hope it's the same one you used to type the passphrase. it should be :)
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
16:45:34
i think the only way to call this specific bug a blocker is to say "luks password screen fails in some cases" which is still way too vague
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:45:44
So I feel like either there is a workaround, in that case I do not see it as a blocker, or there is not and then it makes Fedora unusable to some of the users from the subset and I am not sure how I should treat them.
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:46:55
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:46:55
Since there seems to be a workaround, I would be -1 on this one.
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:46:55
I also don't like the idea of releasing with something that seems like a bug.
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:47:08
Well, if you make this specific bug a blocker, you have just defined which subset because other bugs are for the other subsets. If the X1 is fixed, this bug is fixed.
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
16:47:41
If there is a workaround, then -1 FB
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
16:48:33
-1 FB, if my vote counts here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:10
i've been sorta treating this bug as a proxy for discussing all of them
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:31
it's awkward because i feel like we could maybe waive any *specific* subset as not being common enough, but when you pile them all up it feels like a lot. but then they're differnet bugs.agh
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:49:38
I think we are dealing with three differnet issues though
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
16:50:22
Part of this subset is the adreno/mali subsets where the driver dependency chain is half the world due to the DT/mailbox/voltage/clock/etc drivers.
<@farchord:fedora.im>
16:50:27
And maybe more.... I took 10mins to remove the dGPU from my laptop, and the problem still isn't rearing it's head, so.... *shrug*
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
16:50:27
+1 FB ; due to lenovo x1 carbon
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:22
oh good an ARM case, just what we needed :D
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:52:56
How many of these are *not* resolved by making plymouth use simpledrm?
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
16:53:06
it seems much preferable to release sooner to all users with workarounds for affected systems and fix these later, rather than block trying to diagnose, differentiate, and fix anywhere between 3 and 20 distinct bugs now
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:53:23
Everyone owns a X1?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:53:35
What's the vote count by now?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:51
good question, but I dunno off the top of my head. i'll look through the bugs and try to rationalize this later, and ask anyone who doesn't seem to have tried this whether they can try and report it
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:53:55
theprogram gave a cookie to derekenz. They now have 9 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
<@kepstin:kepstin.ca>
16:54:09
if this affects laptops that were shipped with fedora preloads that probably makes it a bit more important :/
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:23
the vote count is 🤷
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:44
let me see...in issue we have +4 / -3
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:44
with meeting votes i think we're at...+4 / -6 ?
<@korora:fedora.im>
16:56:15
If there's a workaorund, I'm -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:26
i'm counting +4 as the same four on the ticket (pstourac, asciiwolf, psklenar, loquser), -6 as the three from the ticket (geraldiosimiao, derekenz, nielsenb) plus jocelyn, qwertydotplus, lruzicka
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:44
did I miss anyone?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:08
preloads are usually not encrypted, though.
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:57:10
kepstin: The preloads were verified, and an updated preload would be as well. So preload has no relevance to blocker status
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:33
and yeah, preloads don't use release images, so if they want/need to fix this, they can do that outside the release process
<@kepstin:kepstin.ca>
16:58:35
hmm, and i guess preload images don't use encrypted disks generally
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
16:58:41
-1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:16
jforbes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455924#c41 says "I tried enabling simpledrm in /etc/plymouth/plymouthd.conf , no difference", that's a reporter with "Razer Blade 15 Advanced (2022)", Intel Alder Lake-P GT2 [Iris Xe Graphics]
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:40
hmm, maybe you have to regenerate initramfs after doing that, though, and maybe they didn't
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
16:59:47
For some of these you probably have to blacklist the driver load
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:56
ok, with paul we're at +4 / -7, which is a marginal -1 blocker vote
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:15
i think i'm a weak -1 too as this just feels too fuzzy
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:19
so we have a weak -4 margin
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:00:22
Yeah, changing anything without regenerating an initramfs doesn't do much
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:00:23
-1 blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:25
any other votes? kparal? jforbes?
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:00:31
It's way too fuzzy.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:41
-9...ok, let's call it
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:00:51
I am -1 for blocker, it could easily be fixed post release
<@jgroman:fedora.im>
17:00:54
I am leaning FB -1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:01:30
I'm giving it -1 because we don't have a clear-cut case that would affect a lot of hw. Once we have it (e.g. in F45), we can decide differently. For the moment, documenting it is probably the best case.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:01:35
I'm giving it -1 because we don't have a clear-cut case that would affect a lot of hw. Once we have it (e.g. in F45), we can decide differently. For the moment, documenting it is probably the best option.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:56
proposed !agreed 2455924 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker. It's a difficult call as the symptom is significant when you run into it, but we still find it won't affect *most* folks (you need to both do an encrypted install and have affected hardware of some kind for it to be a significant issue), and we suspect it's not much different from previous releases (though it's hard to be sure). There are workarounds, although none is super simple, and you can blind type the passphrase if you guess what's going on. We're also worried that there's no clear path to a resolution if this is accepted, given the apparent range of hardware affected and the difficulty in reasoning about how to try and fix this on those cases without breaking others
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:03:14
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:03:15
ack
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:03:16
ack
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
17:03:18
ack
<@jgroman:fedora.im>
17:03:22
ack
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:03:22
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:03:22
Ack
<@korora:fedora.im>
17:03:24
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:39
!agreed 2455924 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker. It's a difficult call as the symptom is significant when you run into it, but we still find it won't affect most folks (you need to both do an encrypted install and have affected hardware of some kind for it to be a significant issue), and we suspect it's not much different from previous releases (though it's hard to be sure). There are workarounds, although none is super simple, and you can blind type the passphrase if you guess what's going on. We're also worried that there's no clear path to a resolution if this is accepted, given the apparent range of hardware affected and the difficulty in reasoning about how to try and fix this on those cases without breaking others
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:50
man, i love how matrix lets me really go to town on the agreed texts
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:55
irc had a character limit, i hated that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:19
!info that's all the proposed blockers, let's do:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:27
!topic Proposed Freeze Exception issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:43
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, grub2, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:43
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-3) (+ngompa, +asciiwolf, -adamwill, -nielsenb, -derekenz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:43
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2109
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:43
!topic (2457333) Grub environment block is corrupted at first boot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:43
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2457333
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:05
i'm not a huge fan of poking the bootloader to try and fix a cosmetic issue at this stage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:09
even though, yes, it looks dumb
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:05:44
-1 FE, there have been some kind of error displayed for a couple of releases as I recall.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:05:48
FWIW, I agree.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:05:55
Someone proposed a fix w/ a scratch build too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2457333#c16
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:05:57
-1 FE, unless someone can demonstrate a problem in functionality
<@korora:fedora.im>
17:06:17
-1 FE, It still works, just... throws a message to make one wonder
<@psklenar:fedora.im>
17:06:31
-1 FE, its more like warning
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:06:53
Yeah; -1FE; and it's also seems to be reproducible with Workstation ISO, based on comment#17 by Marta.
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:06:54
-1 FE
<@jgroman:fedora.im>
17:07:04
-1 FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:10
proposed !agreed 2457333 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected on the basis it's a bit late to be poking bootloader-related code to try and fix what ultimately appears to be a cosmetic issue
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:07:11
-1 FE
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:07:19
ack
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:07:20
ack
<@korora:fedora.im>
17:07:21
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:07:23
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:36
!agreed 2457333 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected on the basis it's a bit late to be poking bootloader-related code to try and fix what ultimately appears to be a cosmetic issue
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:07:37
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:07:41
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:49
ok, let's take a quick look over:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:52
!topic Accepted Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:09
!info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:09
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2113
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:09
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2458907
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:09
!topic (2458907) Installation of the system failed: Storing configuration files and kickstarts org.fedoraproject.Anaconda.Error: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'path'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:22
!info it's hard to VERIFY this one as it's an unpredictable flake, but we have fairly strong confidence in the fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:41
anything else to say here?
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:09:22
Your "info" summarizes it all for me
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:09:26
Well, to verify the fix being suggested to grub, the point is that its reading and potentially writing invalid parts of the /boot partition. So should the check accidentally pass its /boot corruption
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:54
we're talking about a different bug, now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:01
this is a race-y flake in install
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:27
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448283
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:27
!topic (2448283) Selecting a non-ASCII capable keyboard layout should automatically also select US English as a second layout
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:27
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2078
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:27
!info Accepted Blocker, plasma-setup, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:48
so, i'm gonna suggest we revote this one, for a specific reason: the other related bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2453216 , has now been addressed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:22
i believe that *because* 2453216 is addressed, people are less likely to try and change the settings on this page, and so it's possible to re-evaluate whether this one is still a blocker
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:12:41
Good point
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:12:54
I would prefer to keep it a blocker but defer it to F45
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:13:04
it's still an actual problem, just a less serious one
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:13:06
This one is really fixed
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
17:13:11
yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:13:17
So no need to change layout after
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
17:13:22
punt to f45
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:42
we can't waive blockers at this meeting, that can only happen at go/no-go
<@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de>
17:13:55
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:12
if there isn't sufficient support to change this to rejected, it remains an acceptedblocker and we can talk about waiving it (which automatically punts it to 45) at go/no-go
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:14:18
if there isn't sufficient support to change this to rejected, it remains an accepted blocker and we can talk about waiving it (which automatically punts it to 45) at go/no-go
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:16:11
So we're voting for a revote, that's it adamw: ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:11
that's what I'd prefer to do
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:16:23
I'm revote +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:16:24
I'm disinclined to reject it, though I do agree hitting the issue is a lot less likely
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:16:25
I'd keep it and I'd support waiving it at the Go/No go. This will make sure it gets addressed properly for F45
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:26
nothing has actually _changed_
<@korora:fedora.im>
17:16:50
I'm leaning the same
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:54
i'm proposing it, yeah. but if folks mostly want to keep it as a blocker we can go with that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:05
sounds like that's where we are
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:17:06
Ok
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:17:09
Works for me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:47
!info this specific issue is still not resolved, but we do note that it's possibly a less active concern due to 2453216 being addressed. the most likely course of action is that we will waive this at the go/no-go meeting on Thursday
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:18:03
Ack
<@korora:fedora.im>
17:18:08
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:18:10
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:18:17
ack
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:18:31
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:18:40
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:00
!info the remaining two outstanding accepted blockers are VERIFIED (2453216 and 2458901)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:03
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:06
any other business, folks?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:19:15
Not from me
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:19:26
Not from me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:27
it looks like the most recent RC compose attempt failed, we've asked for a re-run but it isn't started yet
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:19:36
No, but thank you everyone for being here :)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:19:36
nothing here
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:19:48
Let's fix and ship it 🚀🎆
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:19:52
Running 1.4 KDE now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:18
nirik is away, unfortunately, and i don't know if we have NA timezone coverage for him. i can try and fire an RC but as i've never done it i'm a bit afraid i might get something wrong
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:22
i'll read the docs
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:21:33
I think that nothing goes wrong when you attempt to run it.
<@blackcrack:fedora.im>
17:22:04
```Running 1.4 KDE now``` hehe..
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:22:18
I would avoid running those scripts that start their name with `miner` or `trojan` prefixes. Otherwise, it should be fine.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:34
maybe i'll just ask my ai agent to do it for me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:46
everyone's fine with an ai agent with sysadmin-main privileges, right?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:22:46
"Chat, build Fedora"
<@aggraxis:fedora.im>
17:23:09
Make no mistakes.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:23
nearly as terrifying as "twitch chat, build Fedora"
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:23:26
Oh sure
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:15
Act like you know what's you doing...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:36
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:36
> <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Make no mistakes.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:36
Act like you know what you're doing...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:26:37
endmeeting?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:33
yup
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:34
!endmeeting