15:00:26 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting
15:00:26 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 20 15:00:26 2012 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:26 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:30 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:37 <adamw> #topic roll call
15:00:49 <adamw> one awful hangover, reporting for duty
15:00:51 <adamw> who else is here?
15:01:02 * tflink is here
15:01:05 * Cerlyn is here
15:01:06 * garretraziel is here
15:01:08 * spoore is here
15:01:13 <jreznik> jreznik is here
15:01:21 * jreznik is here (sorry ;-)
15:01:23 * kparal as well
15:01:48 <bioinfornatics> .fas bioinfornatics
15:01:49 <zodbot> bioinfornatics: bioinfornatics 'MERCIER Jonathan' <bioinfornatics@gmail.com>
15:02:06 <adamw> yay
15:02:51 * brunowolff is here
15:03:09 <adamw> #topic fedora 18 status
15:03:40 <adamw> well, let's see, we have tc3, which at least kinda-sorta boots into an installer. this is progress!
15:04:03 <kparal> wohooo
15:04:25 * kparal reminds alpha release in 8 days
15:04:26 <garretraziel> yes, but you would have better chance to install F18 with tic-tac-toe game
15:04:39 <adamw> we've found several potential blockers in it though, still
15:04:45 <adamw> garretraziel: hah, that's a way to put it.
15:05:10 <adamw> there's a lot of tc3 validation still to do, and i expect we'll be getting to a tc4 today or tomorrow, just on general principles
15:05:19 <brunowolff> The -rc2 kernel might have some issues. But that isn't the one we'll be using for the release.
15:05:21 <adamw> i guess that's more or less it, any other notes on f18 before we do some blocker review?
15:05:45 <jreznik> adamw: would be great to have tc4 asap (depends on what we can make into it)
15:05:48 <brunowolff> F18 seems to be working OK with the 3.5 kernel from f17 and the rc1 kernel.
15:07:08 <brunowolff> Any update on livemedia-creator builds? Is that what we are going to use for alpha?
15:07:09 <adamw> jreznik: right, i need to go through and check what we have fixes for and what we really want fixes for
15:07:13 <jwb> brunowolff, which release?
15:07:15 <adamw> brunowolff: ooh, good question
15:07:42 <adamw> dgilmore: nirik: either of you around and have any info on lmc builds?
15:08:20 * nirik looks up.
15:08:21 <brunowolff> jwb: 3.6-rc2 hung up on my twice. One looked like apps hung and the other time the whole system might have hung. I'll be trying it out some more after this meeting.
15:08:41 <nirik> I tried to get livemedia-creator working here this weekend without much luck.
15:09:10 <nirik> dgilmore said he was going to talk to bcl about punting and doing livecd-creator again for f18... but I don't know the status of that.
15:09:37 <adamw> roger
15:09:39 <brunowolff> That would be my recommendation. I don't see a need to rush this.
15:09:54 <adamw> #info f18 alpha tc3 is up and at least vaguely bootable, still in highly broken state
15:10:05 <adamw> #info tc4 landing shortly, most likely
15:10:22 <adamw> #info releng is going to talk to bcl about the state of livemedia-creator and the possibility of going back to livecd-creator for now
15:11:32 <adamw> okay, blocker review?
15:11:37 <adamw> #chair tflink kparal
15:11:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink
15:11:43 <adamw> tflink: do you have your stuff set up?
15:12:05 <tflink> give me 1 minute, I didn't realize we were doing a mini review toda
15:12:24 * nirik hit one this weekend, meant to check criteria to see if it should be a blocker.
15:12:49 <adamw> throw it in at the end somewhere.
15:14:09 <tflink> there's another one that's apparently not on the list
15:14:12 <nirik> can do. It's 'impossible to install on a ipv6 enabled network/dual stack network'
15:14:30 <tflink> #info 10 Proposed Blockers
15:14:40 <tflink> #info 2 Proposed NTH
15:15:02 <tflink> starting with the proposed blockers
15:15:06 <tflink> #topic (796479) firewalld conflicts with libvirt's default network
15:15:06 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796479
15:15:07 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, ASSIGNED
15:15:38 <adamw> so i still didn't get to testing this, but laine gave us some useful info
15:16:20 <adamw> still, the virt criteria are all beta, so thinking about it, this ought to be beta
15:16:39 <adamw> "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release, using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology " is the relevant criterion
15:16:41 <tflink> yeah, that makes sense to me
15:17:02 * kparal agrees
15:17:35 <kparal> I would rather see Alpha working flawlessly as a virt guest than virt host
15:17:45 <tflink> proposed #agreed 796479 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - Violates the F18 Beta criterion "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release, using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology"
15:17:50 <adamw> ack
15:17:55 <kparal> ack
15:18:00 * jreznik agrees, seems like laine is in touch with twoerner (I can ask them for status)
15:18:07 <tflink> proposed #agreed 796479 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - Violates the F18 Beta criterion "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release, using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology"
15:18:15 <tflink> just added in the rejected alpha
15:18:34 <tflink> #agreed 796479 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - Violates the F18 Beta criterion "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release, using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology"
15:18:34 <jreznik> ack
15:18:53 <tflink> #topic (841451) polkitd doesn't start in rawhide
15:18:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841451
15:18:53 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
15:19:02 * kparal notes we have to adjust the criteria
15:19:40 <adamw> kparal: which one?
15:20:26 <kparal> adamw: my fault. I thought the cited criterion was alpha
15:20:32 <kparal> nevermind
15:21:08 <tflink> sounds like this needs more testing still
15:21:17 <tflink> punt?
15:21:39 <adamw> yeah, but didn't someone actually manage to get an f18 install now? so we could theoretically tell
15:22:04 <tflink> yeah, I got a F18 install done - it wasn't graphical but it did boot to a text prompt
15:22:09 <kparal> does KDE installation count?
15:22:18 <kparal> garretraziel: you got working KDE, right?
15:22:28 <garretraziel> yep, I got KDE to work
15:22:45 <garretraziel> KDE, LXDE and XFCE works, but it's very hard to install them
15:23:17 <adamw> anything with polkit in the package set. just see if polkitd service runs after install, really
15:24:14 <garretraziel> I cannot verify if is polkitd running, I'm at home now.
15:24:29 <adamw> okay. so, punt.
15:24:40 * tflink doesn't have access to the install right now, though
15:25:29 <brunowolff> Should it just be used with the graphical target? I upgraded a non-graphical system yesterday and the polkit service doesn't seem to be used. The polkitd user wasn't created, even though polkit is install (and was updated).
15:25:32 <tflink> #info this still needs verification with an install containing polkit, will re-evaluate on wednesday
15:25:54 <tflink> #topic (848641) Fedora 18 Alpha TC2 fails to boot from USB stick (written by livecd-iso-to-disk)
15:25:57 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848641
15:26:00 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
15:26:21 <brunowolff> Note that the service name is polkit, though the daemon name is polkitd.
15:26:57 <adamw> ach, this one again. still didn't test the other usb methods. at least, i didn't, dunno about anyone else.
15:27:07 <kparal> I did
15:27:21 <kparal> see comment #4
15:27:32 <adamw> aha, thanks
15:27:35 <tflink> kparal: your last test was with TC3, then?
15:27:40 <kparal> yes
15:27:42 <adamw> ok, so this is blocker
15:27:44 <adamw> nice wowrk
15:29:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed 848641 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following Fedora 18 alpha release criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods"
15:30:01 <adamw> ackity
15:30:08 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
15:30:40 <kparal> ack
15:30:58 <jreznik> ack
15:31:04 <tflink> #agreed 848641 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following Fedora 18 alpha release criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods"
15:31:16 <tflink> #topic (840179) Latest grub2 update broke "system" theme
15:31:17 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840179
15:31:17 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
15:31:49 <tflink> this is arguably not a blocker
15:32:32 * tflink would be fine with NTH unless there is a better final criterion
15:32:35 <adamw> nils makes a reasonable case
15:32:40 <adamw> comment #14
15:32:53 <adamw> but eh, let's not waste too much time on this, it's an easy fix
15:33:09 <adamw> so nth or blocker, whichever, but let's just pick one and fix it...
15:33:42 <kparal> this applies only to upgrades?
15:33:57 <tflink> no, I hit this on a fresh install
15:34:19 <kparal> does this influence everyone, or just people tinkering with grub.conf?
15:34:25 <jreznik> yep, fresh install... it's more nth for me
15:34:34 <tflink> you have to tinker with it to fix it
15:34:47 <tflink> by default, you get a warning at the grub prompt before the menu actually shows up
15:35:01 <tflink> and you have to hit some key to get past that warning
15:36:16 <tflink> I see +1 NTH, +2 either
15:36:19 <kparal> "without unintended user intervention" speaks for +1 blocker
15:36:47 <kparal> but I'm fine with just nth
15:37:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed 840179 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. Thi
15:37:22 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
15:37:25 <kparal> ack
15:37:30 <adamw> ack
15:37:36 <aspratyush> ack
15:37:38 <tflink> if we get enough nak, I'll switch it to NTH
15:37:38 <kparal> the text is cropped
15:37:54 <tflink> hrm, how far does it get?
15:37:55 <brunowolff> ack
15:38:09 <kparal> "in non-graphical mode. Thi"
15:38:20 <jreznik> if we can do it "easily", then I'm ack too
15:38:50 <garretraziel> I would like to add that "firstboot" doesn't work too (it didn't display in KDE, LXDE nor XFCE)
15:39:17 <adamw> garretraziel: is there a bug filed on it?
15:39:22 <adamw> that's four acks, good enough
15:39:33 <tflink> yeah, trying to shorten it
15:39:41 <garretraziel> yep, but in that time I tried it only in LXDE
15:40:01 <garretraziel> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849118
15:40:09 <tflink> #agreed 840179 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the F18 alpha release criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode."
15:40:39 <tflink> #topic (849070) Anaconda's bug reporter doesn't work
15:40:39 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849070
15:40:41 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, POST
15:41:31 <adamw> +1 blocker, by the numbers
15:41:58 <tflink> +1 blocker
15:42:11 <kparal> +1 blocker
15:42:19 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
15:42:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849070 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla and local disk, with appropriate information included"
15:43:05 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
15:43:23 <adamw> ack
15:43:32 <kparal> ack
15:43:36 <jreznik> ack
15:43:44 <tflink> #agreed 849070 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla and local disk, with appropriate information included"
15:43:45 <aspratyush> ack
15:44:01 <tflink> #topic (849112) NoDisksError
15:44:01 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849112
15:44:01 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, ASSIGNED
15:45:00 <tflink> I'm not sure about blocker on this
15:45:37 <kparal> I don't understand comment #15
15:45:56 <kparal> the reproducer in comment #13 seems to be a valid use case
15:46:14 <tflink> yeah, but there is a reasonable workaround
15:46:18 <adamw> i haven't reproduced this to get a 'feel' for it, so it's kinda hard to vote
15:46:40 <kparal> it shouldn't just crash
15:46:46 <tflink> inconvenient, yes but #15 makes me think that it's just poorly worded error messages
15:46:50 <kparal> it's fine when it tells 'you must first do X'
15:48:09 <tflink> yeah, you're right. it shouldn't crash
15:48:09 <kparal> from what I understand, this is a completely typical usage. automatically create layout while there are some partitions on the disk
15:48:20 <kparal> IIUIC
15:48:29 <kparal> so this really shouldn't crash
15:49:15 <kparal> worth inviting dlehman here?
15:49:21 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849112 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion " The installer must be able to complete an installation using the entire disk, existing free space, or existing Linux partitions methods, with or without encryption or LVM enabled"
15:50:13 <kparal> ack from me, unless we find out we haven't understood the use case correctly
15:50:22 <tflink> other ack/nak/patch?
15:51:09 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
15:51:16 <jreznik> ack
15:51:30 <adamw> +/-0
15:51:55 * tflink is waiting for 1 more ack
15:52:32 <jreznik> but maybe more info would be better... not sure I completely understand it but as kparal pointed out, it should not crash
15:52:43 <tflink> or we could punt until wednesday
15:52:50 * kparal inviting dlehman
15:53:55 <kparal> dlehman: please have a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849112
15:54:07 <kparal> can you tell us exactly what's going on?
15:54:18 * tflink is starting to lean towards punt
15:54:22 <tflink> we're almost @ time
15:54:32 <kparal> ah, is someone waiting?
15:54:59 <dlehman> kparal: NoDisksError in this case means "there are no disks with enough space on them to do automatic partitioning"
15:55:22 <kparal> dlehman: the use case is that I choose automatic partitioning on an already partitioned disk?
15:55:45 <dlehman> so if you want to do automatic partitioning from the custom partitioning interface, you must first make space by removing existing partitions from the disk(s)
15:56:17 <kparal> is there any other way to do automatic partitioning?
15:56:29 <kparal> without having to manually remove everything?
15:56:32 <tflink> is this only custom partitioning, then?
15:56:35 <dlehman> yes. don't click "review and modify".
15:56:47 <dlehman> this part of the ui is broken IMO
15:57:08 <adamw> hm, that follows oldui as well, 'review and modify' = custom partitioning. so, that's kinda non-blocker.
15:57:09 <tflink> but since autopart works, I'm not sure it's an alpha blocker
15:57:12 <kparal> so, automatic partitioning without review works. with review it doesn't
15:57:18 <dlehman> "Review and modify" used to mean "do autopart, then show me the results" whereas now it means "do custom partitioning"
15:57:20 <adamw> or rather, final blocker not alpha blocker
15:57:37 <kparal> dlehman: so it's just badly worded
15:57:44 <dlehman> kparal: correct
15:58:32 <dlehman> kparal: or, more than that, the wording is unfortunately invoking memories of previous behavior and thereby also invoking an expectation that the behavior will be the same as it was
15:58:44 <adamw> right.
15:58:44 <kparal> still it should not crash but say "no free disks available"
15:59:11 <brunowolff> At the very least the crashing aspect should be nth.
15:59:24 <adamw> oh, nth for sure.
15:59:28 <jreznik> brunowolff: +1
16:00:12 <dlehman> perhaps we could even make that button insensitive until/unless there's some space to use.
16:00:29 * kparal would have to see a screenshot
16:00:32 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849112 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - Violates the F18 final release criterion: "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above"
16:00:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849112 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Final) - Violates the F18 final release criterion: "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above"
16:01:25 <kparal> just explain to me why Final
16:01:34 <kparal> it's Alpha criterion
16:01:46 <adamw> the criterion cited now is final, not alpha
16:01:50 <kparal> I know people are able to start over, after anaconda crash
16:02:03 * kparal searching for 5 differences
16:02:08 <adamw> kparal: the alpha criterion about an autopart
16:02:11 <adamw> erf
16:02:33 <adamw> the final criterion we've always read as 'any failure in partitioning is a blocker', basically
16:02:53 <adamw> the alpha one is a much tighter 'if you follow the defaults with minimum variation it should work'
16:03:05 <kparal> alright
16:03:30 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:03:42 <adamw> ack
16:03:48 <brunowolff> ack
16:03:56 <kparal> ack
16:03:56 <adamw> but also acceptednth for alpha?
16:04:05 <kparal> +1 nth alpha
16:04:21 <jreznik> +1 nth alpha
16:04:40 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849112 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Final), AcceptedNTH (Alpha) - Violates the F18 final release criterion: "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above"
16:05:23 <adamw> ack
16:05:28 * tflink assumes acks again
16:05:28 <jreznik> ack
16:05:30 <aspratyush> ack
16:05:35 <tflink> #agreed 849112 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Final), AcceptedNTH (Alpha) - Violates the F18 final release criterion: "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above"
16:05:56 <tflink> #topic (849012) IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-p2p1'
16:05:59 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849012
16:06:01 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
16:07:08 <adamw> so basically any attempt to enter network config screen ends up in a crash?
16:07:28 <jreznik> adamw: simplest reproduces is to click on network configuration and click back
16:07:28 <kparal> comment #7 seems to indicate so
16:07:43 <kparal> that's pretty bad
16:07:48 <jreznik> but same if you want to set up advanced options (or any action)
16:08:00 <tflink> sounds like a blocker to me
16:08:08 <jreznik> so it definitely makes impossible to setup network for many people
16:08:13 <kparal> +1 blocker
16:08:14 <adamw> yeah, seems bad enough.
16:08:17 <adamw> +1
16:08:17 <jsmith> +1 blocker from me
16:08:24 <jreznik> +1 as I proposed it :)
16:08:30 <tflink> "The installer must be able to use at least one of the HTTP or FTP remote package source options"?
16:09:10 <adamw> yeah
16:09:26 <aspratyush> +1 blocker
16:09:26 <jreznik> btw it's related to #849070
16:09:27 <adamw> criteria logic :)
16:10:17 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849012 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following fedora 18 alpha release criterion "The installer must be able to use at least one of the HTTP or FTP remote package source options"
16:10:22 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:10:22 <adamw> ack
16:10:55 <kparal> ack
16:11:26 <aspratyush> ack
16:11:38 <tflink> #agreed 849012 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following fedora 18 alpha release criterion "The installer must be able to use at least one of the HTTP or FTP remote package source options"
16:12:08 <tflink> #topic (849250) Not setting up a root password makes non-desktop installs impossible to access
16:12:11 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849250
16:12:13 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
16:12:30 <adamw> +1, obviously. reasoning in the bug.
16:13:11 <tflink> it's workaround-able but this looks pretty bad and you have to know the workarounds
16:13:18 <adamw> yeah.
16:13:22 <jreznik> yep
16:13:31 * aspratyush agrees
16:13:39 <garretraziel> Again, I want to add that, because of missing firstboot, event desktop installs are impossible to access.
16:14:25 <tflink> garretraziel: impossible how? I assume you can still boot into single mode or pseudo-rescue
16:14:52 <adamw> well, not impossible, but same situation as in this bug, i guess.
16:15:00 <garretraziel> yep, that's what I meant
16:15:01 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849250 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "When booting a system installed without a graphical environment, or when using a correct configuration setting to cause an installed system to boot in non-graphical mode, the system should boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles"
16:15:08 <adamw> ack
16:15:15 <kparal> ack
16:15:16 <jsmith> ACK
16:15:21 <spoore> ack
16:15:26 <jreznik> ack
16:15:30 <tflink> #agreed 849250 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "When booting a system installed without a graphical environment, or when using a correct configuration setting to cause an installed system to boot in non-graphical mode, the system should boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles"
16:15:46 <tflink> #topic (849152) anaconda doesn't use DVD repo
16:15:46 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849152
16:15:46 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, POST
16:15:56 <adamw> +1
16:16:54 <kparal> seems like a clear blocker
16:16:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849152 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "When booting from a DVD ISO image, the installer must be able to use the DVD local package source options"
16:17:00 <aspratyush> +1 blocker
16:17:01 <kparal> ack
16:17:04 <jreznik> ack
16:17:05 <jsmith> ACK
16:17:11 <tflink> #agreed 849152 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "When booting from a DVD ISO image, the installer must be able to use the DVD local package source options"
16:17:23 <tflink> #topic (849632) inst.repo=http doesn't work
16:17:23 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849632
16:17:23 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, NEW
16:17:43 <kparal> so I'm really unsure whether I used the correct criterion
16:17:47 <kparal> in this bug
16:18:03 <tflink> does adding things via the graphical interface work?
16:18:14 <kparal> haven't tried
16:18:31 <kparal> this is more about stage2 fetching
16:18:48 <adamw> this is really pxe/virt-install stuff right?
16:18:57 <kparal> I booted through pxe, right
16:19:13 <kparal> I haven't tried boot.iso with inst.repo, my fault
16:19:20 <kparal> I have to change the summary
16:19:45 <kparal> the summary should be 'stage2 can't be fetched with inst.repo'
16:19:57 <kparal> that makes it probably Beta blocker
16:20:08 <adamw> i feel like we decided a specific release point for this kinda thing back in f17
16:20:14 <adamw> but i can't recall if it was alpha, beta or final
16:20:16 <adamw> anyone?
16:20:23 <kparal> bet
16:20:23 <kparal> a
16:20:28 <adamw> no, tiny dwarf with a jackhammer inside my head, you don't count
16:20:34 <adamw> ok, then i vote beta
16:20:48 <tflink> "It must be possible to install by booting the installation kernel directly, including via PXE, and correctly specifying a remote source for the installer itself, using whichever protocols are required to work for package retrieval at the current phase (Alpha, Beta, Final). This must work if the remote source is not a complete repository but contains only the files necessary for the installer itself to run. "?
16:20:53 <kparal> I'll retest with boot.iso and inst.repo
16:21:04 <kparal> tflink: yes
16:21:32 <tflink> that's beta
16:21:55 <adamw> ok, so beta for now
16:22:15 <kparal> just to clarify - " The installer must be able to use at least one of the HTTP or FTP remote package source options " refers to UI?
16:22:39 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849632 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - Violates the F18 beta release criterion "It must be possible to install by booting the installation kernel directly, including via PXE, and correctly specifying a remote source for the installer itself, using whichever protocols are required to work for package retrieval at the current phase (Alpha, Beta, Final). This must work if the remote source is not a complete repository
16:22:48 <kparal> ack
16:23:34 <tflink> ack/nack/patch?
16:23:48 <adamw> kparal: yeah, it does, we could clarify that.
16:24:10 <adamw> though note it's specifically about 'package source', not 'stage2 source'. though that distinction is getting less clear now, i guess.
16:24:37 <adamw> ack
16:25:41 <tflink> #agreed 849632 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - Violates the F18 beta release criterion "It must be possible to install by booting the installation kernel directly, including via PXE, and correctly specifying a remote source for the installer itself, using whichever protocols are required to work for package retrieval at the current phase (Alpha, Beta, Final). This must work if the remote source is not a complete repository but cont
16:25:54 <tflink> ok, that's all of the blockers
16:26:19 <adamw> can we do proposed nth rather than accepted blockers?
16:26:20 <kparal> tflink: the extra one
16:26:29 <tflink> kparal: oh yeah, thanks
16:28:11 <tflink> #topic (849667) Bugreporting from anaconda doesn't work as expected
16:28:11 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849667
16:28:11 <tflink> #info Proposed Blockers, MODIFIED
16:29:09 <kparal> vratislav created that bug just to get the new builds into the compose
16:29:45 <adamw> +1 per the abrt criterion - it obviously means the report submission should work and provide useful data
16:30:09 <kparal> sure, +1 as well
16:30:13 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849667 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla and local disk, with appropriate information included"
16:30:19 <adamw> ack
16:30:20 <kparal> ack
16:30:38 <tflink> #agreed 849667 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla and local disk, with appropriate information included"
16:30:39 <jreznik> ack
16:31:09 <tflink> ok, any other blockers I missed?
16:31:58 <adamw> the firstboot one maybe?
16:32:11 <tflink> did we get a bz# for that?
16:32:14 <adamw> that garretraziel mentioned
16:32:17 <adamw> garret?
16:32:19 <jreznik> yep, firstboot pls
16:32:24 <garretraziel> okay,
16:32:33 <garretraziel> it seems that firstboot doesn't show up
16:32:47 * nirik can note 849395 and ask for other ipv6 enabled folks to test and try and duplicate.
16:33:08 <garretraziel> it didn't showed up in KDE, LXDE nor XFCE. I was unable to test it in gnome (couldn't install it)
16:33:32 <tflink> if someone has a bz#, that would be great
16:33:33 <adamw> garretraziel: bz #?
16:34:01 <garretraziel> 849118
16:34:10 <jreznik> garretraziel: gnome is not going to use firstboot
16:34:30 <adamw> i'm +1 with the info that kde is broken.
16:35:05 <tflink> is this already reported elsewhere?
16:35:08 <jreznik> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849118
16:35:08 <garretraziel> ok, so situation now is that nobody can install gnome and other GUIs firstboots don't show up
16:35:57 <jreznik> #topic (849118)  firstboot doesn't show up in LXDE
16:36:06 <jreznik> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849118
16:36:25 <jreznik> not proposed as blocker but should be
16:36:52 <tflink> #topic (849118) firstboot doesn't show up in LXDE
16:36:52 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849118
16:36:52 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
16:37:07 <rdieter> jreznik: I just added to F18Blocker-kde tracker, fwiw
16:37:15 <jreznik> rdieter: thx
16:37:28 <adamw> +1
16:37:46 <jreznik> +1
16:39:39 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849118 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 Alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphica
16:39:46 <tflink> is that too long again?
16:39:55 <Smoother1rOgZ> .s 1
16:39:55 <kparal> yes
16:39:56 <garretraziel> yep
16:40:08 <kparal> "in non-graphica"
16:41:29 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849118 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 Alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphra
16:41:36 <tflink> better?
16:41:39 <adamw> you can cut the second sentence.
16:41:40 <kparal> nope :)
16:41:44 <adamw> not relevant here.
16:41:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849118 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 Alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphra
16:42:08 <tflink> wait, screwed that up
16:42:14 <kparal> nevermind
16:42:34 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849118 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 Alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
16:43:03 <kparal> ack
16:43:05 <tflink> fourth try's the charm?
16:43:07 <adamw> ack. yay!
16:43:14 <jreznik> ack
16:43:25 <tflink> #agreed 849118 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 Alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
16:43:56 <tflink> any more I missed?
16:44:05 <tflink> doesn't FEScO start in 15?
16:44:26 <jreznik> yep
16:44:28 <adamw> do we have any porposed nth?
16:44:33 <adamw> i think one or two inc the kernel
16:44:39 <tflink> #info (848841) [TUI] anaconda crash when trying to work with empty (new) disk
16:44:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848841
16:44:45 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, ON_QA
16:45:19 <tflink> darn it
16:45:21 <tflink> #undo
16:45:21 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2415ac90>
16:45:23 <tflink> #undo
16:45:23 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x1fcb8f10>
16:45:24 <tflink> #undo
16:45:24 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x1fcb8ad0>
16:45:47 <tflink> #topic (848841) [TUI] anaconda crash when trying to work with empty (new) disk
16:45:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848841
16:45:53 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, ON_QA
16:46:04 <kparal> +1 nth
16:46:12 <adamw> +1
16:46:46 <jreznik> +1
16:47:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed 848841 - AcceptedNTH - This prevents text install with an empty disk which isn't an alpha blocker but a tested fix would be accepted.
16:47:14 <kparal> ack
16:47:26 <adamw> ack
16:47:27 <jreznik> ack
16:47:39 <tflink> #agreed 848841 - AcceptedNTH - This prevents text install with an empty disk which isn't an alpha blocker but a tested fix would be accepted.
16:47:53 <tflink> #topic (849244) Include signed grub2 and kernel in Alpha
16:47:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849244
16:47:53 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, ASSIGNED
16:49:10 <kparal> no reason to deny that, right? the resistance is futile, secure boot is here
16:49:11 <adamw> this seems reasonable, but if the rc2 kernel is bad...
16:49:36 <adamw> still, the theory is we make the issue nth but can refuse to take a build if it's problematic, so +1 nth.
16:49:52 * jreznik really wants to see secure boot in alpha
16:50:24 <tflink> proposed #agreed 849244 - AcceptedNTH - It would be nice to have an SB-capable alpha, a well tested build would be accepted past freeze.
16:50:55 <kparal> ack
16:51:03 <jreznik> ack (and I'd even say it's a blocker - as it's the change that has to be delivered asap to not affect final...)
16:51:51 <adamw> ack
16:51:54 <tflink> #agreed 849244 - AcceptedNTH - It would be nice to have an SB-capable alpha, a well tested build would be accepted past freeze.
16:52:00 <tflink> ok, I think that's all of them
16:52:08 <jreznik> yep
16:52:42 <tflink> adamw: I think we're done w/ 8 minutes to spare :)
16:52:52 <jreznik> one thing from me - go/no-go is scheduled on Wednesda, see http://jreznik.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-18/f-18-pm-tasks.html
16:53:14 <adamw> yeah. chances of go at this point are infinitesimal, fwiw.
16:53:22 <jreznik> adamw: it is :(((
16:53:29 * jreznik is going to announce it
16:53:32 <nirik> but perhaps it will be better by wed. ;)
16:54:18 <adamw> ahaha. optimist.
16:54:31 <adamw> let's skip autoqa update in the interests of brevity
16:54:32 <jreznik> nirik: we are still stuck on anaconda... so I hope at least for installable system for more userland testing... that's all we can get (and would be great to get it)
16:54:33 <tflink> didn't we move the go/nogo to thursday?
16:54:33 <adamw> #topic open floor
16:54:52 <adamw> do we have anything for general qa open floor?
16:55:12 <robatino> i was going to suggest a final criterion for working built-in mediacheck, but there probably isn't time
16:55:16 <nirik> tflink: I had wanted to... perhaps that didn't happen in the schedule?
16:55:34 <tflink> I thought we did agree to it
16:55:43 <tflink> not 100% sure, though
16:55:50 <jreznik> I'm ok with moving it on Thursday...
16:56:00 <adamw> robatino: best on the list i guess
16:56:21 <jreznik> it's just going to be really difficult this Thurday as it's my granma funeral :(
16:56:40 <jreznik> as I said - I can move it, but would be better to do it before announcement...
16:56:57 <adamw> i'm not sure it's gonna make a huge difference this week :)
16:57:01 <tflink> true
16:57:28 <jreznik> well, so Wednesday this week? and schedule next go/no-go on Thursday?
16:57:31 <tflink> I just want to avoid the whole "we can get through the whole matrix in 24 hours" thing again
16:57:39 <mjg59> You guys going to be finished in 3 minutes?
16:57:43 <mjg59> Or should I move fesco to -1?
16:57:44 <tflink> but as adam said, that seems really, really unlikely by wed
16:58:01 <tflink> I think we're done - rest of conversation can be done in #fedora-qa, no?
16:58:03 <jreznik> tflink: yep...
16:58:23 <adamw> mjg59: we'll be done
16:58:37 <adamw> #info we'll decide on the day of the go/no-go meeting shortly
16:58:41 <adamw> thanks folks
16:58:52 <adamw> #info robatino will propose a criterion for mediacheck on the list
16:59:00 <adamw> aaaand that's all she wrote
16:59:03 <adamw> #endmeeting