2026-04-20 16:00:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F44-blocker-review
2026-04-20 16:00:23 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2026-04-20 16:00:22 UTC
2026-04-20 16:00:23 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F44-blocker-review'
2026-04-20 16:00:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2026-04-20 16:00:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:00:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2026-04-20 16:00:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2026-04-20 16:01:00 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Conan Kudo 🥴: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:01:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Boni: Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
2026-04-20 16:01:06 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> kashyapc: Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
2026-04-20 16:01:12 <@jgroman:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:16 <@korora:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi everyone
2026-04-20 16:01:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jaroslav Groman: Jaroslav Groman (jgroman)
2026-04-20 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jocelyn Gould: Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers
2026-04-20 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> adamw: Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:01:55 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:01:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička: Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
2026-04-20 16:01:57 <@blackcrack:fedora.im> oh nice, thy :) Hi :)
2026-04-20 16:02:00 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2026-04-20 16:02:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Rodrigues Ribeiro UTC -3: Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:02:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:02:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz: Derek Enz (derekenz)
2026-04-20 16:02:47 <@psklenar:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:02:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Petr Sklenar: Petr Sklenar (psklenar)
2026-04-20 16:03:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright, let's get some exciting boilerplate going
2026-04-20 16:03:43 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:03:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@chenzy:matrix.org> !hi
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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.
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Beta_Release_Criteria
2026-04-20 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_44_Final_Release_Criteria
2026-04-20 16:03:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> No Fedora Accounts users have the @chenzy:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
2026-04-20 16:04:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2026-04-20 16:04:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Proposed Blockers
2026-04-20 16:04:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 4 Accepted Blockers
2026-04-20 16:04:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2026-04-20 16:04:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 9 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2026-04-20 16:04:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2026-04-20 16:04:24 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I do
2026-04-20 16:05:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks!
2026-04-20 16:05:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize
2026-04-20 16:05:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2026-04-20 16:05:28 <@kparal:matrix.org> !hi
2026-04-20 16:05:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2026-04-20 16:05:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kamil Páral: Kamil Páral (kparal) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +loquser, +nielsenb, +derekenz)
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2442617) tss user is missing before  initrd-switch-root.target
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -derekenz)
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2116
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2442617
2026-04-20 16:05:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, dracut, ASSIGNED
2026-04-20 16:06:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with the latest comment, i'm definitely -1 on this
2026-04-20 16:06:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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."
2026-04-20 16:07:12 <@korora:fedora.im> I'm -1 FB/+1 FE. 
2026-04-20 16:07:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> eh, i'm kinda 0 on FE, i don't see why it can't just be a post-release fix
2026-04-20 16:07:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> remember the *default* should be -1 FE, we need a reason to give +1 FE, it's not a consolation prize
2026-04-20 16:08:37 <@korora:fedora.im> I agree that this one can be a post release fix, it doesn't seem to actually affect anything working
2026-04-20 16:08:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalFE -1
2026-04-20 16:08:56 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yeah Im good either way
2026-04-20 16:09:05 <@psklenar:fedora.im> FinalFE -1
2026-04-20 16:09:16 <@derekenz:fedora.im> FE 0
2026-04-20 16:09:18 <@korora:fedora.im> Given this statement: I'm -1 FE
2026-04-20 16:10:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:10:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (i think FE vote is now +2 / -4 or so)
2026-04-20 16:11:52 <@kparal:matrix.org> blocker -1 FE -1
2026-04-20 16:11:53 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 16:11:57 <@korora:fedora.im> Ack
2026-04-20 16:11:58 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:12:01 <@psklenar:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:12:03 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:12:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, well, if I vote -1 FE we can patch to:
2026-04-20 16:12:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 16:12:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:12:57 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:12:58 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:13:04 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Ack
2026-04-20 16:13:09 <@korora:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:13:12 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:13:18 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 16:13:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-4) (+loquser, -augenauf, -adamwill, -nielsenb, -derekenz)
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2459430) Fedora 44 has power_save on for the wifi NIC RTL8852BE which makes internet slow on affected laptops.
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+3,0,-2) (+nixuser, +asciiwolf, +loquser, -augenauf, -nielsenb)
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2459430
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2120
2026-04-20 16:13:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
2026-04-20 16:13:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (i'm leaving the awkward one till last)
2026-04-20 16:14:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> -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
2026-04-20 16:15:53 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Reading the bug live right now, my non-deep reaction is, it is -1 on both counts FB-1, and FinalFE-1
2026-04-20 16:16:08 <@kparal:matrix.org> -1 blocker
2026-04-20 16:16:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah... slow != unusable
2026-04-20 16:16:13 <@korora:fedora.im> -1
2026-04-20 16:16:14 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> Can the power_save be swtiched off easily?
2026-04-20 16:16:17 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> "Using a vpn fixes the issue too probably by keeping the NIC awake."
2026-04-20 16:16:18 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yeah leaning FE -1
2026-04-20 16:16:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if it was dropping out or busted entirely that's a different issue
2026-04-20 16:16:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> -1 FE -1 FB
2026-04-20 16:16:52 <@kparal:matrix.org> if it can be shown to affect a significant portion of common hardware, then we can re-evaluate
2026-04-20 16:17:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> 5 Megabits per second is enough to track down a workaround
2026-04-20 16:17:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the wireless chip is common enough, but that doesn't change the fact none of us can fix it
2026-04-20 16:18:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and indeed, it still works even if it is garbage tier
2026-04-20 16:18:06 <@jforbes:fedora.im> 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 
2026-04-20 16:18:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:18:21 <@korora:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:27 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:28 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:28 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:41 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 16:18:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in my day we would've *killed* for 5Mb/s wifi
2026-04-20 16:19:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> heck, in my slightly earlier day I'd have inflicted severe bodily harm for an ISDN line
2026-04-20 16:19:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2026-04-20 16:19:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, those were the easy ones! now for the fun one
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455924
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2097
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,1,-3) (+pstourac, +asciiwolf, +psklenar, +loquser, augenauf, -geraldosimiao, -derekenz, -nielsenb)
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+5,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +augenauf, +derekenz, +nixuser, +nielsenb)
2026-04-20 16:19:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2455924) ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 13: black screen when typing LUKS password
2026-04-20 16:20:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i was secretly hoping we'd get a clearer picture on this over the weekend, but...yeahnah.
2026-04-20 16:21:02 <@korora:fedora.im> Is this happening on any othersystems that we've heard of?
2026-04-20 16:21:12 <@jforbes:fedora.im> It is happening on all manner of systems
2026-04-20 16:21:19 <@jforbes:fedora.im> And in different ways
2026-04-20 16:22:02 <@psklenar:fedora.im> I will have such a laptop in day or two, but it seems there are already all info in the bz
2026-04-20 16:22:03 <@jforbes:fedora.im> I am curious as to Marks suggestion
2026-04-20 16:22:12 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I think ultimately there is no one "it" bug.
2026-04-20 16:22:16 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> (I have only Gen 12; no Gen 13.  Can't test it yet)
2026-04-20 16:22:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2026-04-20 16:22:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> geraldosimiao: Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:22:54 <@jforbes:fedora.im> This seems very much though like a fix isn't coming from kernel, but more likely plymouth and/or dracut
2026-04-20 16:23:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do we not put graphics drivers in the initramfs?
2026-04-20 16:23:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i...sort of assumed we did
2026-04-20 16:23:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo 🥴 ought to know
2026-04-20 16:23:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (if he's feeling better. the smiley seems...somewhat upgraded?)
2026-04-20 16:24:00 <@jforbes:fedora.im> I had assumed as much myself, we certainly put the firmware in. I was wondering if dracut changes might have stopped that
2026-04-20 16:24:33 <@farchord:fedora.im> It went from a Lv3 sickness smiley to a Lv1 sickness smiley. That's like, Neal's Defcon levels 🤣
2026-04-20 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> isn't there a generic 'stick every loaded module in there'?
2026-04-20 16:25:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> -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
2026-04-20 16:25:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2026-04-20 16:25:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> [adamw@omnibook boot]$ lsinitrd ./ostree/fedora-9f27f6785d330e1b960235fd3f4488bf20f2777f5e1d9e80e8546d133575be25/initramfs-6.19.13-300.fc44.x86_64.img | grep drm/i915
2026-04-20 16:25:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:25:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ```
2026-04-20 16:25:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> granted, i'm on silverblue
2026-04-20 16:26:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we do on generic initramfs images
2026-04-20 16:26:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> for hostonly ones, we do only if we detected they were loaded at runtime
2026-04-20 16:26:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I don't see it on mine
2026-04-20 16:27:10 <@jforbes:fedora.im> Yeah, amdgpu is in my initramfs as well. So I am guessing Mark was debugging someone else's issue
2026-04-20 16:27:34 <@farchord:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:27:35 <@kepstin:kepstin.ca> i've tweaked my probably-affected system to use simplefb and not include gpu drivers in the initramfs which seems to avoid this problem :/
2026-04-20 16:27:54 <@farchord:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:27:56 <@kepstin:kepstin.ca> i've tweaked my probably-affected system to use simpledrm and not include gpu drivers in the initramfs which seems to avoid this problem :/
2026-04-20 16:28:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> for my laptop I have `plymouth.use-simpledrm=0` to avoid this problem
2026-04-20 16:28:40 <@farchord:fedora.im> Maybe it was the same here
2026-04-20 16:29:13 <@farchord:fedora.im> I have a Framework 16 w/ AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 w/ Radeon 890M btw
2026-04-20 16:29:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah I have the previous gen Framework 16
2026-04-20 16:29:51 <@jforbes:fedora.im> Conan Kudo 🥴: according to the bug, that would do nothing as plymouth explicitly disables simpledrm already if LUKS is in use
2026-04-20 16:30:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> similar IGP
2026-04-20 16:30:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm pretty sure simpledrm is used by default if you *don't* have encryption, and disabled by default if you *do* have encryption
2026-04-20 16:30:19 <@korora:fedora.im> I have hte i915 module in my initramfs
2026-04-20 16:30:26 <@farchord:fedora.im> Lemme see, I'm on the laptop right now ill go disable both args and reboot
2026-04-20 16:30:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that was only the case in the past six months, I've had this in place for over a year
2026-04-20 16:30:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:30:32 <@korora:fedora.im> I have hte i915 module in my initramfs I'm on F44 Workstation
2026-04-20 16:30:47 <@jforbes:fedora.im> adamw: Yes, but several users are saying in the bug that enabling simpledrm in plymouth fixes the problem
2026-04-20 16:31:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> simpledrm has been a black screen for me since early in Fedora 42
2026-04-20 16:31:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> regardless of luks
2026-04-20 16:32:20 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> !hi
2026-04-20 16:32:22 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): Paul Maconi (aggraxis) - he / him / his
2026-04-20 16:33:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:33:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:33:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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")
2026-04-20 16:34:15 <@korora:fedora.im> is there any commonality in the affected machines (ie. just intergragted GPU vs Discrete GPU)?
2026-04-20 16:34:18 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Right, nevermind the firmware bloat boottime issues with having to decompress/etc and missing firmware etc.
2026-04-20 16:34:33 <@jlinton:fedora.im> Its largly a mistake just on that basis to try and load those drivers that early
2026-04-20 16:34:35 <@psklenar:fedora.im> more hz displays, >60hz
2026-04-20 16:35:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we seem to have various little groupings, as best I can tell
2026-04-20 16:35:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> high refresh rate laptop displays (on intel?) is one
2026-04-20 16:35:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nvidia hybrids is another
2026-04-20 16:35:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> AMD dells seems to be another (group of two)
2026-04-20 16:36:17 <@farchord:fedora.im> Yeah seems its not doing it anymore but I installed a dGPU in my laptop so that might've "fixed" it
2026-04-20 16:36:17 <@jforbes:fedora.im> nvidia hybrids are typically intel for the default, though there are a few with amd
2026-04-20 16:36:22 <@korora:fedora.im> Means it's semi widespread.  I don't have anything that has a higer than 60hz refresh rate...
2026-04-20 16:39:33 <@kparal:matrix.org> It looks like we can't do much more unless plymouth/simpledrm/etc developers get involved
2026-04-20 16:40:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm still finding it hard to reason about whether it's a blocker :|
2026-04-20 16:40:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and if so, *what* is a blocker? one or more of the vaguely-identified subsets? all of them?
2026-04-20 16:42:09 <@psklenar:fedora.im> It is common to think there is no display during the LUKS password stage. so all
2026-04-20 16:42:12 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Based on Conan Kudo 🥴 saying there were issues with F42 in this domain as well, it doesn't really feel too blockery to me
2026-04-20 16:42:16 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I really don't like it though
2026-04-20 16:43:26 <@korora:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:44:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, the whole 'is this worse than before? on which subsets?' question we haven't even really got into yet
2026-04-20 16:44:43 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> 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?
2026-04-20 16:44:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:45:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> *releasing butterfly meme.jpg* "is this, is this a blocker?"
2026-04-20 16:45:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you hope it's the same one you used to type the passphrase. it should be :)
2026-04-20 16:45:34 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> 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
2026-04-20 16:45:44 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> 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.
2026-04-20 16:46:55 <@korora:fedora.im> 
2026-04-20 16:46:55 <@korora:fedora.im> Since there seems to be a workaround, I would be -1 on this one. 
2026-04-20 16:46:55 <@korora:fedora.im> I also don't like the idea of releasing with something that seems like a bug.
2026-04-20 16:47:08 <@jforbes:fedora.im> 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.
2026-04-20 16:47:41 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> If there is a workaround, then -1 FB
2026-04-20 16:48:33 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> -1 FB, if my vote counts here
2026-04-20 16:49:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've been sorta treating this bug as a proxy for discussing all of them
2026-04-20 16:49:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:49:38 <@korora:fedora.im> I think we are dealing with three differnet issues though
2026-04-20 16:50:22 <@jlinton:fedora.im> 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.
2026-04-20 16:50:27 <@farchord:fedora.im> 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*
2026-04-20 16:50:27 <@psklenar:fedora.im> +1 FB ; due to lenovo x1 carbon
2026-04-20 16:51:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh good an ARM case, just what we needed :D
2026-04-20 16:52:56 <@jforbes:fedora.im> How many of these are *not* resolved by making plymouth use simpledrm?
2026-04-20 16:53:06 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> 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
2026-04-20 16:53:23 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Everyone owns a X1?
2026-04-20 16:53:35 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> What's the vote count by now? 
2026-04-20 16:53:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:53:55 <@zodbot:fedora.im> theprogram gave a cookie to derekenz. They now have 9 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
2026-04-20 16:54:09 <@kepstin:kepstin.ca> if this affects laptops that were shipped with fedora preloads that probably makes it a bit more important :/
2026-04-20 16:54:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the vote count is 🤷
2026-04-20 16:54:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let me see...in issue we have +4 / -3
2026-04-20 16:55:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with meeting votes i think we're at...+4 / -6 ?
2026-04-20 16:56:15 <@korora:fedora.im> If there's a workaorund, I'm -1
2026-04-20 16:56:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 16:56:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> did I miss anyone?
2026-04-20 16:57:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> preloads are usually not encrypted, though.
2026-04-20 16:57:10 <@jforbes:fedora.im> kepstin: The preloads were verified, and an updated preload would be as well. So preload has no relevance to blocker status
2026-04-20 16:57:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and yeah, preloads don't use release images, so if they want/need to fix this, they can do that outside the release process
2026-04-20 16:58:35 <@kepstin:kepstin.ca> hmm, and i guess preload images don't use encrypted disks generally
2026-04-20 16:58:41 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> -1
2026-04-20 16:59:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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]
2026-04-20 16:59:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, maybe you have to regenerate initramfs after doing that, though, and maybe they didn't
2026-04-20 16:59:47 <@jlinton:fedora.im> For some of these you probably have to blacklist the driver load
2026-04-20 16:59:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, with paul we're at +4 / -7, which is a marginal -1 blocker vote
2026-04-20 17:00:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'm a weak -1 too as this just feels too fuzzy
2026-04-20 17:00:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we have a weak -4 margin
2026-04-20 17:00:22 <@jforbes:fedora.im> Yeah, changing anything without regenerating an initramfs doesn't do much 
2026-04-20 17:00:23 <@kparal:matrix.org> -1 blocker
2026-04-20 17:00:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes? kparal? jforbes?
2026-04-20 17:00:31 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> It's way too fuzzy.
2026-04-20 17:00:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> -9...ok, let's call it
2026-04-20 17:00:51 <@jforbes:fedora.im> I am -1 for blocker, it could easily be fixed post release
2026-04-20 17:00:54 <@jgroman:fedora.im> I am leaning FB -1
2026-04-20 17:01:30 <@kparal:matrix.org> 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.
2026-04-20 17:01:35 <@kparal:matrix.org> 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.
2026-04-20 17:02:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:03:14 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:15 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:16 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:18 <@psklenar:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:22 <@jgroman:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:22 <@jforbes:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:22 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2026-04-20 17:03:24 <@korora:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:03:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2026-04-20 17:03:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> man, i love how matrix lets me really go to town on the agreed texts
2026-04-20 17:03:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> irc had a character limit, i hated that
2026-04-20 17:04:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info that's all the proposed blockers, let's do:
2026-04-20 17:04:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Freeze Exception issues
2026-04-20 17:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, grub2, NEW
2026-04-20 17:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+2,0,-3) (+ngompa, +asciiwolf, -adamwill, -nielsenb, -derekenz)
2026-04-20 17:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2109
2026-04-20 17:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2457333) Grub environment block is corrupted at first boot
2026-04-20 17:04:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2457333
2026-04-20 17:05:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not a huge fan of poking the bootloader to try and fix a cosmetic issue at this stage
2026-04-20 17:05:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> even though, yes, it looks dumb
2026-04-20 17:05:44 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> -1 FE, there have been some kind of error displayed for a couple of releases as I recall.
2026-04-20 17:05:48 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> FWIW, I agree.
2026-04-20 17:05:55 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Someone proposed a fix w/ a scratch build too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2457333#c16
2026-04-20 17:05:57 <@kparal:matrix.org> -1 FE, unless someone can demonstrate a problem in functionality
2026-04-20 17:06:17 <@korora:fedora.im> -1 FE, It still works, just... throws a message to make one wonder
2026-04-20 17:06:31 <@psklenar:fedora.im> -1 FE, its more like warning
2026-04-20 17:06:53 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah; -1FE; and it's also seems to be reproducible with Workstation ISO, based on comment#17 by Marta.
2026-04-20 17:06:54 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> -1 FE
2026-04-20 17:07:04 <@jgroman:fedora.im> -1 FE
2026-04-20 17:07:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:07:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1 FE
2026-04-20 17:07:19 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:07:20 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:07:21 <@korora:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:07:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2026-04-20 17:07:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2026-04-20 17:07:37 <@jforbes:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:07:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:07:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's take a quick look over:
2026-04-20 17:07:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Final blockers
2026-04-20 17:08:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
2026-04-20 17:08:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2113
2026-04-20 17:08:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2458907
2026-04-20 17:08:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2458907) Installation of the system failed: Storing configuration files and kickstarts org.fedoraproject.Anaconda.Error: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'path'
2026-04-20 17:08:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info it's hard to VERIFY this one as it's an unpredictable flake, but we have fairly strong confidence in the fix
2026-04-20 17:08:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anything else to say here?
2026-04-20 17:09:22 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Your "info" summarizes it all for me
2026-04-20 17:09:26 <@jlinton:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:10:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're talking about a different bug, now
2026-04-20 17:11:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is a race-y flake in install
2026-04-20 17:11:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448283
2026-04-20 17:11:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2448283) Selecting a non-ASCII capable keyboard layout should automatically also select US English as a second layout
2026-04-20 17:11:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2078
2026-04-20 17:11:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, plasma-setup, NEW
2026-04-20 17:11:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:12:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:12:41 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Good point 
2026-04-20 17:12:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would prefer to keep it a blocker but defer it to F45
2026-04-20 17:13:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's still an actual problem, just a less serious one
2026-04-20 17:13:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> This one is really fixed 
2026-04-20 17:13:11 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> yeah
2026-04-20 17:13:17 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> So no need to change layout after 
2026-04-20 17:13:22 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> punt to f45
2026-04-20 17:13:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can't waive blockers at this meeting, that can only happen at go/no-go
2026-04-20 17:13:55 <@qwertydotplus:tchncs.de> ok
2026-04-20 17:14:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:14:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:16:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> So we're voting for a revote, that's it adamw: ?
2026-04-20 17:16:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's what I'd prefer to do
2026-04-20 17:16:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I'm revote +1
2026-04-20 17:16:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm disinclined to reject it, though I do agree hitting the issue is a lot  less likely
2026-04-20 17:16:25 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:16:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nothing has actually _changed_
2026-04-20 17:16:50 <@korora:fedora.im> I'm leaning the same 
2026-04-20 17:16:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm proposing it, yeah. but if folks mostly want to keep it as a blocker we can go with that
2026-04-20 17:17:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sounds like that's where we are
2026-04-20 17:17:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ok
2026-04-20 17:17:09 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Works for me
2026-04-20 17:17:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2026-04-20 17:18:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2026-04-20 17:18:08 <@korora:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:18:10 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:18:17 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:18:31 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> ack
2026-04-20 17:18:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2026-04-20 17:19:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info the remaining two outstanding accepted blockers are VERIFIED (2453216 and 2458901)
2026-04-20 17:19:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2026-04-20 17:19:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2026-04-20 17:19:15 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Not from me
2026-04-20 17:19:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Not from me
2026-04-20 17:19:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it looks like the most recent RC compose attempt failed, we've asked for a re-run but it isn't started yet
2026-04-20 17:19:36 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> No, but thank you everyone for being here :)
2026-04-20 17:19:36 <@kparal:matrix.org> nothing here
2026-04-20 17:19:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Let's fix and ship it 🚀🎆
2026-04-20 17:19:52 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Running 1.4 KDE now
2026-04-20 17:20:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2026-04-20 17:20:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll read the docs
2026-04-20 17:21:33 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I think that nothing goes wrong when you attempt to run it.
2026-04-20 17:22:04 <@blackcrack:fedora.im> ```Running 1.4 KDE now``` hehe..
2026-04-20 17:22:18 <@kparal:matrix.org> I would avoid running those scripts that start their name with `miner` or `trojan` prefixes. Otherwise, it should be fine.
2026-04-20 17:22:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe i'll just ask my ai agent to do it for me
2026-04-20 17:22:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> everyone's fine with an ai agent with sysadmin-main privileges, right?
2026-04-20 17:22:46 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> "Chat, build Fedora"
2026-04-20 17:23:09 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Make no mistakes.
2026-04-20 17:23:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nearly as terrifying as "twitch chat, build Fedora"
2026-04-20 17:23:26 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Oh sure
2026-04-20 17:24:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Act like you know what's you doing...
2026-04-20 17:24:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 
2026-04-20 17:24:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> > <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Make no mistakes.
2026-04-20 17:24:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Act like you know what you're doing...
2026-04-20 17:26:37 <@kparal:matrix.org> endmeeting?
2026-04-20 17:27:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yup
2026-04-20 17:27:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting