16:01:04 <tflink> #startmeeting f19alpha-blocker-review-3
16:01:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 27 16:01:04 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:05 <tflink> #meetingname f19alpha-blocker-review-3
16:01:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19alpha-blocker-review-3'
16:01:05 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:01:22 <tflink> Who's ready for some blocker review happy fun time?
16:01:48 <tflink> #chair adamw kparal
16:01:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink
16:01:49 <adamw> morning
16:02:30 * brunowolff will be here today
16:02:53 * kparal looks around
16:03:13 * nirik is lurking
16:05:19 <tflink> ooh, lots of people today :)
16:05:31 * jreznik is here too
16:05:58 * satellit_e listening
16:08:26 <tflink> alrighty, let's get started with some boilerplate
16:08:31 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:08:44 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:08:44 <tflink> #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.
16:08:51 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:08:52 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:08:57 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:08:57 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:09:07 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:09:07 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:09:40 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:09:52 <tflink> #info 16 Proposed Blockers
16:09:52 <tflink> #info 8 Accepted Blockers
16:09:52 <tflink> #info 3 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:09:52 <tflink> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:09:59 <kparal> so much fun
16:10:07 <tflink> note that there is one proposed blocker which is a test bug
16:11:03 <tflink> which was already removed from the count
16:11:33 <tflink> if there are no objections, I'll start with the proposed blockers
16:12:03 <adamw> yaay
16:12:25 <tflink> #topic (926913) rescue mode fails with traceback
16:12:25 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926913
16:12:25 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:13:20 <kparal> +1 blocker per criterion cited
16:13:59 <tflink> sounds pretty straight forward to me
16:14:37 <tflink> proposed #agreed 926913 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The rescue mode of the installer must start successfully and be able to detect and mount an existing default installation."
16:15:17 <adamw> ack
16:15:34 <kparal> ack
16:15:47 <tflink> other ack/nak/patch?
16:16:27 <brunowolff> ack
16:16:49 <tflink> #agreed 926913 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The rescue mode of the installer must start successfully and be able to detect and mount an existing default installation."
16:17:00 <tflink> #topic (924138) Cannot set password for root during text-mode installation
16:17:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924138
16:17:06 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, VERIFIED
16:17:49 <tflink> not sure this would be a blocker but it's already fixed so that discussion is mostly academic
16:18:04 <kparal> if it's fixed, let's skip it automatically
16:18:21 <adamw> why wouldn't it be a blocker? violates the post-install requirements of a non-gui install
16:18:26 <adamw> with no root password, you can't log in
16:18:27 <robatino> it prevents a text install
16:18:35 <tflink> I thought text install was beta
16:18:44 <robatino> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926900#c1
16:18:51 <adamw> tflink: nope
16:19:06 <adamw> "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces. "
16:19:15 <adamw> and "A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles. "
16:19:37 <robatino> actually, the installer doesn't even let you finish the install without providing the root password
16:19:41 <tflink> any objections to skipping it since it's VERIFIED?
16:20:06 <adamw> sure, skip.
16:20:11 <adamw> robatino: ah, well that makes it easier :)
16:20:11 <jreznik> we can formally accept it as a blocker and skip
16:20:30 <tflink> jreznik: those two things are mutually exclusive
16:20:56 <tflink> #info this bug is already VERIFIED, skipping review since we're not in freeze yet
16:21:05 * satellit_e does anaconda install with no user but root password work? I have not been able to finish install.
16:21:18 <tflink> #topic (924162) Software selection checking doesn't work.
16:21:18 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924162
16:21:18 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:21:23 <adamw> satellit_e: not the place for random discussion, we're trying to keep these meetings short :)
16:21:29 <satellit_e> ok
16:22:08 <adamw> so, I don't see that this hits any criteria...
16:22:19 <adamw> it allows you to start an install with an uninstallable package set, which is kinda bad
16:23:30 <kparal> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images which cause the package to fail to install. " ?
16:23:33 <tflink> is it a modified package set?
16:24:01 <tflink> I think this was a default package set
16:24:22 <adamw> this is not the bug for that
16:24:23 <tflink> from c#0 'In "SOFTWARE SELECTION" spoke make no changes and click "Done".'
16:24:27 <brunowolff> I think this bug is about anaconda's issue, not about uninstallable package set.
16:24:41 <adamw> we already have/had bugs for the actual dependency errors in question (libimobiledevice stuff)
16:24:41 <kparal> ok, no exact criterion then
16:24:42 <brunowolff> It doesn't seem like a blocker to me.
16:24:51 <adamw> this bug report covers anaconda allowing you to kinda 'override' the conflict detection
16:25:46 <adamw> yeah, i'm probably -1
16:25:48 <brunowolff> I don't think I'd even want a freeze break just for a fix for this.
16:26:23 <tflink> not for alpha, anyways
16:26:46 <kparal> I think this could be a Final blocker
16:26:51 <kparal> -1 for Alpha
16:27:34 <jreznik> ok, -1
16:28:04 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924162 - RejectedBlocker - This does not hit any of the alpha release criteria as it requires the user to ignore dep errors and proceed with the install and is thus rejected as a release blocking bug for Fedora 19 alpha
16:28:14 <brunowolff> ack
16:28:14 <adamw> ack
16:28:32 <kparal> ack
16:28:41 <tflink> #agreed 924162 - RejectedBlocker - This does not hit any of the alpha release criteria as it requires the user to ignore dep errors and proceed with the install and is thus rejected as a release blocking bug for Fedora 19 alpha
16:28:57 <tflink> #topic (926916) anaconda can't report traceback to bugzilla
16:28:57 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926916
16:28:57 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:29:30 <tflink> seems like another pretty straight-forward blocker
16:29:56 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
16:30:03 <kparal> +1
16:30:05 <adamw> yep.
16:30:13 <tflink> proposed #agreed 926916 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included."
16:30:22 <brunowolff> ack
16:30:35 <jreznik> ack
16:30:39 <tflink> robatino: thank you for putting the criterion in the bug, it makes running the meeting much easier
16:32:12 <kparal> ack
16:32:15 <tflink> #agreed 926916 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included."
16:32:21 <adamw> robatino: and the secretaryization!
16:32:31 <tflink> #topic (928279) anaconda doesn't start on LiveCD (in Gnome)
16:32:31 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928279
16:32:31 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:33:18 <adamw> did anyone reproduce this with tc2?
16:33:23 <adamw> i'm not sure what image petr is testing exactly
16:33:25 <tflink> unlike this petr character who didn't include a criterion violation ...
16:33:46 <adamw> =)
16:34:52 <kparal> I saw it as well
16:34:55 <kparal> also Josef
16:34:57 * satellit_e live desktop x86_64 TC2 needs 2048 memory to run in VirtualBox
16:35:10 <kparal> but I haven't seen that traceback
16:35:16 <kparal> in my case anaconda takes 100% cpu
16:35:36 <kparal> so probably a different issue
16:36:41 <kparal> but there's a traceback, the report is valid
16:37:23 <kparal> we can ask him to provide more information about the hardware setup, it might be related to a particular machine or usb creation method or something
16:38:14 <tflink> yeah, not clear whether this is widespread enough to justify blocker status
16:38:24 <tflink> punt for more info?
16:38:52 <adamw> yeah, i think so
16:38:59 <brunowolff> +1
16:39:50 <kparal> ok
16:40:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928279 - While this sounds like it has potential to be a release blocking issue, we need more details before making a final decision - will revisit when more details are available
16:40:50 <adamw> just tried tc2 desktop live, anaconda runs for me
16:40:55 <adamw> ack
16:40:56 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:41:44 <kparal> ack
16:42:09 <tflink> #agreed 928279 - While this sounds like it has potential to be a release blocking issue, we need more details before making a final decision - will revisit when more details are available
16:42:09 <kparal> adamw: it's very erratic, even in VMs
16:42:21 <tflink> #topic (928303) F19 KDE contains F18 artwork
16:42:21 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928303
16:42:21 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
16:43:08 <tflink> martin also gets a cookie for including a criterion
16:43:25 <tflink> seems pretty straight-forward but shouldn't be a huge issue
16:43:40 <tflink> is the packaging deadline for artwork before freeze?
16:43:48 <jreznik> tflink: it is
16:44:00 <jreznik> +1 as a blocker, already asked mbriza to work on it
16:44:27 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
16:44:33 <jreznik> the backgrounds are already packaged and should be final for alpha
16:44:35 <adamw> +1
16:45:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928303 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The default desktop background must be different from that of the two previous stable releases"
16:45:24 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:45:41 <kparal> ack
16:46:07 <adamw> ack
16:46:12 <brunowolff> ack
16:46:30 <tflink> #agreed 928303 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "The default desktop background must be different from that of the two previous stable releases"
16:46:47 <tflink> #topic (927967) initial-setup is not included in default install
16:46:47 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927967
16:46:47 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, MODIFIED
16:48:03 <kparal> +1
16:48:13 <kparal> already fixed it seems
16:48:54 <tflink> was it fixed before TC2 was spun up?
16:49:30 * kparal checks
16:49:44 <adamw> if anyone has the DVD downloaded, should be easy enough to check
16:50:01 * kparal working on it
16:50:21 <kparal> file-roller seems to be extracting whole DVD just to look inside
16:50:28 <adamw> kparal: mount -o loop!
16:50:38 <kparal> too late, not worth it now
16:50:41 <adamw> my favourite of all the mounts
16:51:01 <kparal> initial-setup is not there
16:51:24 <kparal> adamw: I sometimes expect software to be intelligent. my bad
16:52:09 <adamw> so, not fixed for tc2, but should be in next build, i guess
16:52:15 <adamw> +1 blocker for KDE, firstboot does nothing now
16:52:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 927967 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 release criterion as firstboot has been retired: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
16:52:50 <brunowolff> The criteria still mentions firstboot. Should that get changed?
16:53:03 <kparal> ack
16:53:56 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
16:54:01 <tflink> didn't adamw start a thread on changing that already?
16:54:12 <adamw> yeah, it got some odd objections so far...
16:54:16 <adamw> but it's in progres.
16:54:20 <adamw> ack
16:54:35 <tflink> #agreed 927967 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 release criterion as firstboot has been retired: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
16:54:49 <tflink> #topic (928353) FF 32b crashes for a number of web pages
16:54:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928353
16:54:50 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, firefox, NEW
16:56:15 <kparal> it would be great if someone could test it on a installed system (32b)
16:56:23 <kparal> but LiveCD is important as well
16:56:33 <adamw> interesting bug
16:56:37 <kparal> it's causing us problems wrt tomorrow's test day
16:56:41 <adamw> possibly related to the VM hardware too?
16:56:53 <kparal> adamw: no, tested both VM and bare-metal
16:56:55 <adamw> or were you testing metal?
16:56:56 <adamw> huh.
16:57:20 <adamw> i'd say +1 under the 'web browser' requirement
16:57:28 <tflink> yeah, same here
16:57:40 <adamw> kparal: you could appeal for help on #fedora-devel or devel@
16:57:46 <tflink> kamil gets a cookie for citing criterion in the bug :)
16:57:47 <adamw> people tend to be interested in this kind of thing
16:58:00 <kparal> adamw: I already talked to Martin Stransky about it, he should be working on it
16:58:06 <adamw> cool
16:58:14 * jreznik does not see him online now
16:58:15 <kparal> he's the maintainer
16:58:50 <kparal> +1 from me
16:58:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928353 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments."
16:59:06 <kparal> ack
16:59:06 <jreznik> +1 as some primary spins are still using FF
16:59:10 <jreznik> ack
16:59:19 <kparal> "still" :-)
16:59:24 <tflink> jreznik: which spins aren't using FF as default?
16:59:25 <adamw> ack
16:59:33 <jreznik> tflink: kde
16:59:34 <adamw> kde uses its own browser
16:59:36 <adamw> always has
16:59:44 <tflink> #agreed 928353 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments."
16:59:59 <tflink> ah, I didn't realize that they used it by default, though
17:00:47 <jreznik> and I'd say it will die in gnome spin too one day :)
17:01:12 <adamw> ack
17:01:16 <adamw> oh whoops
17:01:31 <tflink> jreznik: not a big FF fan?
17:01:47 <adamw> you can pry ff from my cold dead hands
17:01:57 <tflink> adamw: +100
17:02:10 <tflink> #topic (923364) [3.7.92] Despite moving mouse in Black Screen(Blank Screen), gnome-shell doesn't switch to unlock screen
17:02:13 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923364
17:02:16 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
17:03:09 <adamw> they recently zapped this upstream
17:03:21 <adamw> i don't know if it'll get backported downstream or if we are expected to wait for 3.8.1...
17:03:39 <adamw> i don't see that this meets any criteria, though it is rather annoying
17:04:02 <kparal> I think it blocks all GUI criteria
17:04:03 <jreznik> yep, as it meets "boot to gui criteria"
17:04:08 <jreznik> kparal: why?
17:04:13 <adamw> oh, i see the comment now
17:04:30 <jreznik> (at least not for Alpha)
17:04:33 <adamw> kparal: just pressing 'esc' works. or, as i said, disabling the screen blank timeout.,
17:04:40 <kparal> jreznik: because if your screen gets stuck, you can't run browser or download updates, as required in the criteria
17:04:45 <kparal> adamw: esc helps?
17:04:50 <adamw> works fine for me
17:04:52 <adamw> try it
17:05:09 <kparal> adamw: why is it not mentioned in the the bug?
17:05:18 <adamw> most of the discussion moved to the upstream bug
17:05:21 <kparal> ah
17:05:30 <kparal> if Esc works, I'm fine with -1
17:07:04 <adamw> -1 here
17:07:31 * kparal will test Esc in a bit
17:07:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 923364 - RejectedBlocker - While this is annoying, it is possible to workaround by pressing esc or disabling screen lock. As such, it does not violate any of the F19 alpha release criterion and is rejected as a release blocking bug for F19 alpha
17:07:43 <adamw> ack
17:07:46 <jreznik> ack
17:07:48 <kparal> ack
17:07:57 <tflink> #agreed 923364 - RejectedBlocker - While this is annoying, it is possible to workaround by pressing esc or disabling screen lock. As such, it does not violate any of the F19 alpha release criterion and is rejected as a release blocking bug for F19 alpha
17:08:10 <tflink> #topic (924031) initial-setup-graphical.service fails
17:08:11 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924031
17:08:11 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, initial-setup, POST
17:09:05 <kparal> +1
17:09:18 <tflink> sounds like it has been root-caused but is waiting for a new anaconda build
17:10:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924031 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for the KDE spin: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
17:10:21 <adamw> +1, and the person who filed this bug sounds handsome and intelligent
17:10:45 <adamw> oh, um
17:10:59 <tflink> adamw: really? I was getting the exact opposite impression ...
17:11:01 <adamw> i think i kinda lost track of this, but bcl was not keen on the idea of initial-setup having a package dependency on anaconda
17:11:04 <adamw> tflink: =)
17:11:13 <adamw> we should talk to msivak about that
17:11:17 <kparal> ack
17:12:12 <kparal> adamw: Esc doesn't work
17:12:20 <adamw> kparal: from where?
17:12:21 <kparal> in a VM, TC2 Live
17:12:24 <adamw> it doesn't work from GDM, for me
17:12:27 <adamw> does from desktop though
17:12:31 <kparal> adamw: from desktop
17:12:32 <adamw> if it gets stuck at gdm i just reboot, heh
17:12:40 <adamw> huh. works for me.
17:12:51 <adamw> i'm still -1 even if it didn't, though
17:12:58 <kparal> adamw: oh, now it worked. after 1 minute of clicking and hitting keys. maybe it's soooo sloooow?
17:12:59 <tflink> #info it isn't clear whether it's a good idea for initial-setup to have a package-level dep on anaconda, the exact method of fixing will require more conversation with devs
17:13:22 <tflink> other ack/nak/patch? I see 1 ack, 0 nak
17:14:11 <jreznik> ack
17:14:18 <kparal> adamw is also ack
17:14:28 <kparal> I guess that's the +1
17:14:36 <tflink> #agreed 924031 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for the KDE spin: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
17:14:37 <adamw> yeah
17:14:43 <tflink> wfm
17:14:57 <tflink> #topic (928228) global name 'ROOT_PATH' is not defined
17:14:58 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928228
17:14:58 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, NEW
17:16:35 <tflink> has anyone else seen this?
17:17:28 <adamw> i haven't, but i haven't run that many tests yet
17:17:33 <adamw> busy playing with shiny things
17:17:43 <tflink> it sounds like it's bare-metal only
17:19:09 <kparal> I saw it as well
17:19:12 <kparal> also on bare-metal
17:19:29 <adamw> two people hitting it on bare metal's enough for me to get worried
17:19:41 <kparal> at least I guess, Petr gave me the flash drive, I tested it and he said it was the same thing
17:19:54 <kparal> I don't remember the exception by heart
17:21:41 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928228 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for installs to bare-metal: "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning."
17:21:42 <smooge> tflink, I have seen it
17:22:03 <kparal> ack
17:22:07 <adamw> <bcl> that'll be fixed in the next blivet build.
17:22:09 <tflink> smooge: could you add that to the bug?
17:22:49 <tflink> petr is at -2 cookies for the day, though
17:23:37 <smooge> tflink, added
17:23:47 <tflink> rhbz 4.4 will be a nice change, it calls out state changes instead of requiring you to look through the history
17:24:00 <kparal> tflink: I'll tell Peter tomorrow
17:24:09 <tflink> smooge: thanks
17:24:51 <tflink> any other ack/nak/patch? I see 1 ack, 0 nak
17:25:10 <adamw> ack, sure
17:25:28 <tflink> #agreed 928228 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for installs to bare-metal: "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning."
17:25:47 <tflink> #topic (922988) python-blivet not creating /sys and /run on /mnt/sysimage
17:25:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922988
17:25:52 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED
17:26:28 <tflink> sounds like this is band-aided enough to reject as a blocker for alpha
17:26:56 <tflink> or do we want to wait for the real fix?
17:28:10 <kparal> can somebody make tldr version?
17:28:39 <tflink> missing /sys and /run post-install breaks the system
17:28:59 <tflink> was hacked around in dracut, should be fixed for real w/ next anaconda/blivet release
17:29:11 <tflink> adamw: does that sound right to you?
17:29:14 <adamw> the hackaround is enough to drop blocker status
17:29:14 <adamw> yeah
17:29:21 <kparal> if the hack is good enough, we can -1
17:29:22 <tflink> proposed #agreed
17:30:12 <tflink> proposed #agreed 922988 - RejectedBlocker - The hacks in place are enough to make this not a release blocking issue for F19 alpha and thus, this bug is rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha
17:30:41 <brunowolff> ack
17:30:49 <adamw> ack
17:31:12 <kparal> ack
17:31:14 <tflink> #agreed 922988 - RejectedBlocker - The hacks in place are enough to make this not a release blocking issue for F19 alpha and thus, this bug is rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha
17:31:28 <tflink> #topic (919374) /var/run not created with var_run_t leading to many boot avc's
17:31:31 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919374
17:31:34 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, MODIFIED
17:33:15 <adamw> this seems like a weird one
17:33:25 <adamw> and holy bejesus, bz is slow
17:33:34 <kparal> it's preventing boot after dvd install
17:34:19 <adamw> sounds like there should be a fix soon anyway
17:34:52 <kparal> if you don't do enforcing=0, you can't currently boot after a DVD install. I'm not totally sure it's _this_ issue
17:35:12 <kparal> but msivak said it is
17:35:28 <tflink> thoughts on punt vs accept?
17:35:56 <adamw> i don't mind accepting, i just don't understand why i've never seen this, but hey
17:36:08 <adamw> maybe i did and drank the memory away. it happens
17:36:16 <kparal> adamw: have you done DVD installs?
17:36:37 <adamw> i've done netinst of f19 from f18, which is one thing the reporter said was a reproducer
17:37:20 * kparal shrugs. tc2 dvd install seems as a good reproducer, if it's the same root cause
17:38:09 <adamw> call it accepted, fine
17:39:25 <tflink> proposed #agreed 919374 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for DVD and netinstall installs: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
17:39:32 <robatino> for me, i could boot, but the network wasn't working
17:39:54 <kparal> ack
17:40:20 <brunowolff> ack
17:41:05 <tflink> #agreed 919374 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion for DVD and netinstall installs: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
17:41:15 <tflink> #topic (924500) kvm f19 guest reports "BUG: bad unlock balance detected" (backtrace) when using vnc/cirrus on f17 host
17:41:18 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924500
17:41:20 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-drivers, NEW
17:41:56 <tflink> oops, I skipped one - will circle back after these 2 xorg bugs
17:43:08 <adamw> -1 as per comment
17:43:24 <adamw> also worth noting the virt/xorg guys are starting to kick about supporting cirrus, they're trying to get everyone onto qxl now...
17:43:54 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924500 - RejectedBlocker - Running on virt is not an alpha release criteria and later comments make it sound like this might not be so widespread
17:44:06 <brunowolff> ack
17:44:21 <adamw> ack
17:44:28 <kparal> ack
17:44:51 <tflink> adamw: will there be any alternatives going forward? qxl seems a bit heavy for non-graphical VMs
17:45:02 <tflink> #agreed 924500 - RejectedBlocker - Running on virt is not an alpha release criteria and later comments make it sound like this might not be so widespread
17:45:29 <adamw> tflink: heavy in what way?
17:45:37 <tflink> adamw: memory usage
17:45:53 <adamw> oh, i see. i dunno, vga is probably still acceptable for a console.
17:45:58 <tflink> unless the memory it lists is only reserved if needed
17:46:06 <adamw> i think it may be
17:46:26 <tflink> 64m overhead seems high for a vm w/o X
17:46:37 <adamw> anyway, off-topic
17:46:56 <tflink> this seems similar - virt isn't alpha blocker material
17:47:26 <tflink> assuming I actually change the topic
17:47:49 <adamw> yeah, that'd help
17:48:07 <tflink> #topic (924494) kvm f19 guest xorg segfault with spice/qlx on f17 hosts
17:48:10 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924494
17:48:12 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-drivers, NEW
17:48:29 * tflink was looking at the wrong bug before
17:48:31 <tflink> oh well
17:48:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924494 - RejectedBlocker
17:48:59 <adamw> yeah, -1 per the criteria. sounds annoying though
17:49:13 <jreznik> -1
17:49:23 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924494 - RejectedBlocker - Virt-only bugs do not qualify as blockers for F19 alpha
17:49:25 <brunowolff> -1 alpha blocker
17:49:31 <brunowolff> ack
17:49:53 <adamw> ack
17:51:08 <jreznik> ack
17:51:26 <tflink> #agreed 924494 - RejectedBlocker - Virt-only bugs do not qualify as blockers for F19 alpha
17:51:41 <tflink> ok, now back to the bug I skipped earlier
17:51:47 <tflink> #topic (928339) systemd[1]: Failed to mount /run: No such file or directory
17:51:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928339
17:51:53 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:53:14 <tflink> is this related to the other missing-directory bug?
17:54:07 <jreznik> bz is still loading, loading...
17:54:29 <kparal> this might be a duplicate, right
17:54:55 <tflink> but that was supposedly fixed well enough to not be a blocker
17:54:56 <kparal> dupe of 922988 maybe
17:55:06 <adamw> yeah...
17:55:16 <adamw> well, the dracut band-aid wouldn't hit /run, i guess?
17:55:27 <adamw> wrong criterion, btw, kparal, that only applies to booting the live image itself
17:55:41 <kparal> adamw: ah, you're right
17:55:53 <adamw> post-install boot would be the one
17:56:15 <adamw> i don't think /sysroot/run would be expected to be present at boot time, would it? wouldn't it get mounted by anaconda or something?
17:56:30 * adamw runs a test install of tc2 live
17:57:03 <kparal> I reproduced twice, it's real
17:58:01 <adamw> i'd say +1 blocker and treat separately for now
17:58:06 <adamw> especially since it didn't affect c1
17:58:06 <kparal> +1
17:58:07 <adamw> tc1
17:58:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928339 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
17:59:06 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:59:16 <kparal> ack
17:59:31 * kparal gets a rotten cookie for an incorrect criterion
18:00:07 <tflink> ew, rotten cookie? that's worse than -1 cookie
18:00:11 <adamw> ack
18:00:14 <adamw> heh
18:01:13 <brunowolff> ack
18:01:28 <tflink> #agreed 928339 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 alpha release criterion: "A system installed with a graphical package set must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account."
18:01:35 <tflink> kparal: half of a cookie?
18:01:49 <kparal> tflink: ok, that's better
18:02:08 <tflink> OK, that would be all of the proposed blockers for today
18:02:52 <tflink> on to the proposed FE!
18:03:32 <adamw> yay!
18:03:40 <tflink> #action tflink or adamw to finish secretarializing from a previous meeting and reject 894110 as a proposed FE
18:03:50 <tflink> #topic (920380) Graphical menu screen garbled on thinkpad T400
18:03:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920380
18:03:50 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, grub2, NEW
18:04:06 <adamw> tflink: d'oh
18:04:40 <tflink> adamw: yeah, I forgot about it too :) I think that was rejected almost a month ago now
18:05:10 <adamw> just did it
18:05:33 <adamw> oh, god, the damn t400 again.
18:05:38 <adamw> i think this is an old bug?
18:05:48 <tflink> cloned for F19
18:05:50 <adamw> yeah.
18:06:14 <adamw> i guess theoretically this makes sense, but to be tflink-ian about it, do we want to +1 a bug with no proposed fix at all?
18:06:29 <adamw> we've no idea what the fix for this would be, and no-one seems keen to fix it
18:06:31 <tflink> sounds a bit too HW specific for alpha
18:06:45 <kparal> hence my idea about required developer feedback
18:07:02 <kparal> no reason to vote on it without it
18:07:04 <adamw> sure'
18:07:11 <tflink> I don't think that I'd be +1 alpha FE on this, even with a fix
18:07:25 <tflink> changing grub for one laptop model seems a bit risky
18:09:03 <adamw> well it'd all depend on the fix
18:09:15 <adamw> but i don't want to +1 it without seeing some kind of analysis at least
18:10:19 <tflink> proposed #agreed 920380 - RejectedFreezeException - There is no proposed fix and no clear idea on how to fix this issue. Rejected as freeze exception for F19 alpha, please re-propose if there is a fix imminently available.
18:10:38 <tflink> RejectedNTH was so much easier to type :-/
18:10:53 <adamw> ack
18:10:54 <adamw> heh :)
18:11:02 <adamw> harder to understand, though.
18:11:28 <brunowolff> Good use for programmable function keys.
18:11:31 <tflink> yeah, I'm all for killing NTH as terminology
18:11:52 <tflink> brunowolff: I never thought about that, might have to give it a try
18:12:01 <tflink> or I could start using RejectedFE
18:12:43 <tflink> any other ack/nak/patch?
18:12:52 <kparal> ack
18:12:55 <adamw> ack
18:12:56 <brunowolff> ack
18:13:07 <tflink> #agreed 920380 - RejectedFreezeException - There is no proposed fix and no clear idea on how to fix this issue. Rejected as freeze exception for F19 alpha, please re-propose if there is a fix imminently available.
18:13:20 <tflink> #topic (923547) Packages listed as 'optional' in comps being pulled into F19 live composes
18:13:23 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923547
18:13:25 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, yum, NEW
18:13:54 <kparal> iso size requirements are Alpha or Beta?
18:14:04 <tflink> this is another one that I'm not sure of
18:14:22 <tflink> fixing yum post-freeze seems questionable unless this is causing iso size issues
18:15:09 <adamw> beta
18:15:25 <adamw> i'd really want to fix this when the fix shows up. the large lives are just ugly.
18:15:32 <adamw> and having all that crap on them isn't ideal.
18:15:49 <adamw> it's all stuff that someone has actively thought 'this shouldn't be installed by default' about, after all.
18:16:54 <tflink> you have a point, I think this would be a beta blocker
18:17:08 <tflink> and is proposed as such
18:17:18 <adamw> but eh, vote as you will :)
18:18:03 <brunowolff> I think it's worth a freeze exception for alpha.
18:18:15 <tflink> which is worse, oversized lives for alpha or possibly broken yum post-freeze?
18:18:20 <tflink> probably oversized lives
18:18:37 <tflink> that probably looks worse than a possible slip
18:19:38 <tflink> proposed #agreed 923547 - AcceptedFreezeException - This causes oversized isos and while this isn't a release blocking issue for Alpha, it is for beta and would be good to get it fixed now if possible
18:19:43 <adamw> ack
18:20:05 <kparal> ack
18:20:23 <tflink> #agreed 923547 - AcceptedFreezeException - This causes oversized isos and while this isn't a release blocking issue for Alpha, it is for beta and would be good to get it fixed now if possible
18:20:33 <tflink> that is all of the proposed FEs
18:20:42 <tflink> on to the accepted blockers!
18:20:55 <tflink> #topic (919935) enblend FTBFS due to doc/texinfo related issues
18:20:56 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919935
18:20:56 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, enblend, NEW
18:20:58 <adamw> could someone for the love of cookies please feed the hamsters powering bugzilla?!
18:21:01 <adamw> they are clearly hungry.
18:21:20 <tflink> I think they're doing some db stuff in the background
18:22:12 <tflink> it doesn't seem that slow for me, though
18:22:18 <tflink> just as slow as it usually
18:22:20 <tflink> is
18:22:22 <adamw> oh well
18:22:28 <adamw> i think we may be able to de-blocker this one
18:22:32 <adamw> a build got done with the docs disabled
18:22:47 <brunowolff> Hey I have been seeing that trying to do openwrt builds the last ouple of days.
18:23:17 <brunowolff> I was seeing @'s in comments being treated as functions unless the @'s were escaped with another @.
18:23:34 * adamw adds a comment
18:23:41 <adamw> brunowolff: yeah, i suspect it'll affect rather more than this
18:23:51 <adamw> seems like a non-backwards-compatible change or two in texinfo 5
18:24:02 <brunowolff> (Unlike Adam, I don't get to buy a lot of fancy new equipment. I get to try to get updated software to work on old equipment.)
18:24:33 <adamw> brunowolff: hey, it's not AT ALL like I gave the server box a conflicting IP address not once but twice because i don't even remember half the crap I have dangling off my routers!
18:24:35 <adamw> *ahem*
18:25:17 <brunowolff> I also saw complaints about ordering in the menu, not matching that of the sections.
18:25:21 <tflink> either way, it sounds like this is not-a-blocker for now
18:25:33 <adamw> yeah, we pulled the enblend build into tc2
18:25:44 <tflink> not-an-alpha-blocker, anyways
18:25:48 <brunowolff> This was causing problems building openwrt buildtools, so the Fedora versions mattered.
18:25:55 <adamw> robatino: the tests didn't barf on enblend in tc2 did they?
18:26:10 <robatino> no
18:26:48 <adamw> okay, so let's drop it
18:27:17 <tflink> proposed #agreed 919935 - RejectedBlocker - While still a serious issue, the components of this which were blocking the release of F19 alpha have been solved (enblend has been built and pulled into TC2). Thus, this is no longer considered a release blocking bug for F19 alpha
18:27:33 <brunowolff> ack
18:27:47 <adamw> ack
18:28:45 <tflink> did we lose a kparal?
18:29:35 <tflink> #agreed 919935 - RejectedBlocker - While still a serious issue, the components of this which were blocking the release of F19 alpha have been solved (enblend has been built and pulled into TC2). Thus, this is no longer considered a release blocking bug for F19 alpha
18:29:47 <tflink> #topic (924248) repoclosure failure on 19 Alpha TC1 DVDs (enblend)
18:29:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924248
18:29:53 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, enblend, NEW
18:30:03 <tflink> ah, fixed but not closed
18:30:13 <adamw> yeah, close it
18:30:22 * kparal is back, but leaves soon
18:30:24 <adamw> i'll do it, move on
18:30:25 <tflink> #info this has been reported as fixed with TC2, can be closed
18:30:35 <tflink> #topic (917246) gdm-simple-slave crashes on login attempt
18:30:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917246
18:30:36 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, gnome-shell, MODIFIED
18:31:32 <tflink> it sounds like progress has been stalled on this
18:31:41 <tflink> #info no movement on this bug in a week
18:32:45 <tflink> #info some disagreement on where the bug should be fixed - in comps by adding gnome-session-xsession or if GDM should be able to survive without an existing session
18:33:11 <adamw> it's already 'fixed' in comps, we could drop blocker nomination
18:33:16 <tflink> #info still waiting for feedback from desktop team on possible fix
18:34:04 <tflink> the symptom has been removed, anyways
18:34:43 <adamw> like i say, we can drop the nomination, this isn't blocking anything at present
18:34:44 <tflink> thoughts on whether this is still a blocker
18:34:55 <kparal> not a blocker anymore
18:35:02 <brunowolff> I think not based on what Adam says.
18:35:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed 917246 - RejectedBlocker - This symptom is no longer present after gnome-session-xsession was added to the comps group. Thus, this is no longer considered severe enough to block release of F19 alpha
18:36:03 <kparal> ack
18:37:28 <brunowolff> ack
18:37:30 <tflink> #agreed 917246 - RejectedBlocker - This symptom is no longer present after gnome-session-xsession was added to the comps group. Thus, this is no longer considered severe enough to block release of F19 alpha
18:37:34 <tflink> #topic (923951) yum is getting stuck in urlgrabber
18:37:37 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923951
18:37:39 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, python-urlgrabber, NEW
18:38:09 <brunowolff> I have seen this (416 errors with ranges) happen outside of anaconda.
18:38:09 <tflink> it sounds like we have a fix, waiting for a new build
18:38:49 <tflink> er, a root cause at least
18:38:52 <tflink> not a fix yet
18:39:14 <tflink> #info progress is being made, an initial root cause has been proposed
18:39:35 <tflink> I don't see anything that we need to do here for now
18:39:52 <tflink> #topic (924256) repoclosure failure on 19 Alpha TC1 DVDs (resteasy)
18:39:52 <adamw> yeah, bcl is getting there slowly but surely
18:39:55 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924256
18:39:57 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, resteasy, NEW
18:40:08 <tflink> #info still broken in TC2
18:41:34 <tflink> #info resteasy has been FTBFS in rawhide since 2013-02-22
18:42:21 <brunowolff> Didn't tomcat6 go away?
18:42:21 <tflink> hrm, no response from the maintainer on either bug
18:42:41 <tflink> good point
18:44:09 <brunowolff> That might make it hard to do a quick fix.
18:44:10 <tflink> anyone feel like taking an action to see if this needs to be changed in comps?
18:46:43 <tflink> I guess we can wait another week to see if it's fixed
18:47:05 <adamw> nah, it'd be better to check
18:47:06 <adamw> #action me
18:47:09 <adamw> grr
18:47:12 <adamw> #undo
18:47:12 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Action object at 0x2a3390d0>
18:47:16 <adamw> #action ,me
18:47:52 <tflink> #action adamw to check into resteasy dep errors on tomcat6 and whether it needs to be removed
18:48:13 <tflink> #topic (924244) repoclosure failure on 19 Alpha TC1 DVDs (rubygem-rails)
18:48:16 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924244
18:48:19 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, rubygem-rails, MODIFIED
18:48:40 <tflink> #info this was fixed in TC2, bug can be closed
18:49:27 <adamw> closing!
18:49:40 <tflink> #topic (924258) repoclosure failure on 19 Alpha TC1 DVDs (rubygem-railties)
18:49:41 <adamw> beat me to it.
18:49:43 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924258
18:49:46 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, rubygem-railties, MODIFIED
18:50:05 <tflink> #info this has been fixed in F19 alpha TC2, can be closed
18:50:39 <tflink> #topic (928302) setroubleshoot-server-3.2.3-1.fc19.i686 requires setools-libs-python >= 3.3.7-19
18:50:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928302
18:50:44 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, setroubleshoot, MODIFIED
18:51:25 <tflink> #info this has been reported to be fixed in newest setroubleshoot but not yet in a TC
18:51:34 <tflink> #info can likely be closed after the next TC build
18:51:54 <tflink> I do believe that is all of the bugs for today!
18:52:11 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
18:52:20 <brunowolff> I have setroubleshoot-server-3.2.3-2.fc19.i686 installed on a branched machine so the fix is out there.
18:52:25 <tflink> Anything else that needs to be brought up today?
18:52:48 <brunowolff> Any word on gdm and llvmpipe?
18:53:06 <tflink> which bug?
18:53:13 <brunowolff> I am using kdm on branched and rawhide now, but can't test gnome at all.
18:53:29 <brunowolff> bug  	909473
18:53:35 <tflink> it sounds like the symptom of gdm not starting should be fixed with the next compose if it hasn't been fixed already
18:53:38 <brunowolff> That's the FE bug.
18:55:07 <tflink> yeah, I bet that ends up sticking around til beta :-/
18:55:12 <brunowolff> It gets a fail whale page because the correct graphics support isn't being used. I have two machines I am using now that it affects.
18:55:46 <tflink> not much input from experts
18:55:53 <adamw> which bug is this again?
18:56:03 <brunowolff> 909473
18:56:13 <tflink> the blacklisted gfx not working anymore w/ the loss of fallback
18:56:33 <adamw> oh, yeah.
18:56:42 <brunowolff> Removing the blacklisting doesn't help either. I tried that as well.
18:56:43 <adamw> i think ajax is trying to fix that, he may not be updating the bug
18:56:54 <adamw> well, the blacklisting is generally there for a reason :)
18:57:47 <brunowolff> Hopefully he updates the bug if there is something to test.
18:59:23 <adamw> yeah, i'll try and remember to keep in touch about it
18:59:49 <brunowolff> This one might be a nice common bug for alpha. You can work around it by going to a vt, stopping gdm and starting kdm.
19:00:25 <brunowolff> For longer term you can disable gdm and enable kdm.
19:00:48 <adamw> commonbugs is a good idea
19:00:51 <adamw> can you add that as a comment?
19:00:57 <brunowolff> You might need to install kdm.
19:01:02 <brunowolff> Yes.
19:01:31 <smooge> does lightdm work?
19:01:40 <brunowolff> I haven't tried it.
19:02:02 <smooge> what is the method for stopping gdm/starting kdm these days?
19:02:30 <smooge> sorry.. I was running into something with gdm this morning so it might be related
19:02:45 <brunowolff> I knew I had kdm installed on the first machine I saw it on, so I tried kdm first. I use xfce for my desktop and now have it configured mostly like I had gnome fallback.
19:03:00 <brunowolff> systemctl stop gdm
19:03:07 <brunowolff> systemctl start kdm
19:03:11 <smooge> ah thats
19:03:15 <smooge> great
19:03:17 <smooge> thanks
19:03:23 <brunowolff> use enable and disable to make this persist.
19:04:33 <adamw> shall we wind up the meeting?
19:04:53 <tflink> adamw: just waiting to see if the conversation went farther
19:05:16 <tflink> if there's nothing else, I'll set the fuse for [0,5] minutes
19:12:14 <tflink> thanks for coming, everyone!
19:12:23 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
19:12:27 <tflink> #endmeeting