16:01:09 <tflink> #startmeeting f19alpha-blocker-review-5
16:01:09 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr  8 16:01:09 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:09 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:10 <tflink> #meetingname f19alpha-blocker-review-5
16:01:10 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:01:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19alpha-blocker-review-5'
16:01:16 <tflink> #chair kparal adamw
16:01:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink
16:01:54 * kparal bacon
16:02:17 * jreznik is here, still hungry, no bacon love
16:02:20 * satellit listening
16:02:31 * mkrizek here
16:05:02 * brunowolff is here
16:05:04 <tflink> any volunteers for secretary duty?
16:05:38 <adamw> sure
16:05:49 <tflink> adamw: thanks
16:06:07 <tflink> looks like we have enough people, let's get started
16:06:13 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:06:26 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:06:26 <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.
16:06:32 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:32 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:41 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:06:41 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:06:48 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:06:48 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:06:53 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:07:02 <tflink> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:07:02 <tflink> #info 9 Accepted Blockers
16:07:02 <tflink> #info 11 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:07:02 <tflink> #info 4 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:07:23 <tflink> if there are no objections, we'll start with the proposed blockers
16:08:17 <tflink> #topic (888307) Inserting an F18 DVD does not automatically add the DVD repo to running gnome3 installation
16:08:20 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888307
16:08:22 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-settings-daemon, NEW
16:08:52 <tflink> already -2 blocker from votes in bug
16:08:57 <adamw> -1 blocker, I think satellit misread the criterion.
16:09:21 <tflink> the issue, as described here, is that you can't use the DVD as a repo _after_ installation
16:09:25 <tflink> also -1
16:09:27 <satellit> can this be changed to nice to have?
16:09:40 <mkrizek> -1
16:09:52 <satellit> it is important for sneaker-net  non network install
16:10:05 <adamw> maybe for final, it really doesn't seem significant enough for alpha or beta
16:10:12 <satellit> ok
16:10:56 <adamw> anyone +1 for alpha fe?
16:11:23 <kparal> no
16:11:24 <tflink> proposed #agreed 888307 - RejectedBlocker - This does not violate any alpha release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha
16:11:31 <kparal> ack
16:11:36 <mkrizek> ack
16:11:37 <adamw> ack
16:11:38 <tflink> I'd probably be -1 this late in freeze
16:11:49 <tflink> #agreed 888307 - RejectedBlocker - This does not violate any alpha release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha
16:12:01 <tflink> #topic (946964) after default install of 19 Alpha TC3 in KVM, can't log in from gdm
16:12:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946964
16:12:07 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
16:12:30 <robatino> no one else seems to see it. i offered to submit logs, no one's taken me up on it
16:13:17 <adamw> well, you should just attach them, you don't need permission :)
16:13:27 <tflink> either way, I'm starting to think -1 blocker due to few people hitting it - it can be resubmitted if it turns out to be a bigger problem
16:13:29 <robatino> but i don't know which ones are relevant
16:13:32 <adamw> but yeah, as no-one else seems to be seeing this and we've had it for a couple of weeks now, maybe time to -1 it as system-specific?
16:13:34 <adamw> right
16:14:23 <robatino> i'm okay with -1 if no one else sees it
16:14:42 <kparal> robatino: can you try to increase the RAM?
16:14:52 <robatino> i tried 2 GiB, no difference
16:15:06 <robatino> (normally i use the default 1 GiB)
16:15:13 <adamw> i'm -1, though it'd be nice to figure this one out
16:15:46 <akshayvyas> -1 here.....will reopen if some one noticed ??
16:15:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed 946964 - RejectedBlocker - While this has the potential to be a release blocking bug, it appears to be somewhat system specific at the moment and not widespread enough to justify release blocking status. Please re-propose as a blocker if it turns out to be more severe or widespread.
16:16:24 <adamw> ack
16:16:26 <jreznik> ack
16:16:26 <akshayvyas> ack
16:16:27 <mkrizek> ack
16:16:50 <kparal> ack
16:16:51 <robatino> i did attach a section of /var/log/messages in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946964#c9
16:16:51 <tflink> #agreed 946964 - RejectedBlocker - While this has the potential to be a release blocking bug, it appears to be somewhat system specific at the moment and not widespread enough to justify release blocking status. Please re-propose as a blocker if it turns out to be more severe or widespread.
16:17:00 <tflink> #topic (949315) KDM greeter fails with missing Spherical Cow theme files
16:17:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949315
16:17:06 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, spherical-cow-kde-theme, NEW
16:17:46 <adamw> this looks to be related to some KDE stuff in updates-testing
16:17:47 <adamw> so -1
16:17:56 <tflink> it sounds like nobody else is seeing this
16:17:56 <adamw> though it'd be good to figure out what's borked, obviously
16:17:58 <tflink> -1
16:18:09 <mkrizek> actually it seems to be fixed in updates-testing already
16:18:16 <adamw> ah, that'd explain the difference in results
16:18:22 <akshayvyas> -1
16:18:23 <kparal> -1
16:18:27 <mkrizek> -1
16:18:28 <jreznik> -1
16:19:13 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949315 - RejectedBlocker - This appears to be system/site specific or it has already been fixed in F19 updates-testing. Either way, it does not warrant release blocking status at this time and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha.
16:19:18 <adamw> ack
16:19:19 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:19:23 <jreznik> ack
16:19:31 <mkrizek> ack
16:19:55 <tflink> #agreed 949315 - RejectedBlocker - This appears to be system/site specific or it has already been fixed in F19 updates-testing. Either way, it does not warrant release blocking status at this time and is thus rejected as a blocker for F19 alpha.
16:19:55 <akshayvyas> ack
16:20:14 <kparal> ack
16:20:25 <tflink> OK, that's all the proposed blockers on my list - on to the proposed FE
16:21:34 <adamw> do the ones in MODIFIED or better first
16:22:32 <tflink> probably a good plan, give me a minute to reorganize my list
16:23:42 <tflink> #topic (947261) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'memInstalled' (anaconda fails to boot with 512mb ram in TEXT MODE)
16:23:46 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947261
16:23:48 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, MODIFIED
16:24:35 <tflink> +1
16:24:36 <adamw> it'd be nice if they'd provide a bit more detail
16:24:38 <adamw> but i guess +1
16:24:44 <adamw> lemme see if i can find the patch
16:25:02 <tflink> it should be a pretty simple patch
16:25:09 <adamw> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2013-April/003640.html
16:25:12 <adamw> yeah, it's a one-liner
16:25:16 <tflink> I would be surprised if it was complicated, anyways
16:25:17 <adamw> seems pretty restricted
16:25:39 <adamw> so yeah, +1.
16:25:45 <tflink> I don't see how that could make things worse
16:26:44 <adamw> your failure of vision astounds me
16:26:51 <adamw> any other votes?
16:27:04 <adamw> just imagine if blivet were in fact a hungry, hungry raptor
16:27:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed 947261 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now
16:27:28 <kparal> ack
16:27:46 <tflink> well, I don't see how it could make things worse unless it either doesn't build or blows up in all cases - either way, we'd figure it out pretty quick
16:27:50 <adamw> ack
16:28:02 <brunowolff> It seems safe to apply. The replacement variable is already being used, so it isn't likely to cause a new problem.
16:28:04 <tflink> famous last words
16:28:11 <adamw> you'll figure it out pretty quick when the hungry, hungry raptor emerges from your monitor, but it won't help
16:28:25 <tflink> that'd be a neat trick
16:28:47 <tflink> anyhow, any more ack?
16:29:18 <adamw> don't make me get out the moustache
16:29:20 <tflink> #agreed 947261 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now
16:29:38 <tflink> adamw: new quote, methinks
16:29:41 <brunowolff> Accepted FE
16:29:55 <tflink> brunowolff: oh, right
16:29:56 <tflink> whoops
16:29:59 <tflink> #undo
16:29:59 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x277dc210>
16:30:21 <tflink> #agreed 947261 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is a small, restricted change that fixes a warning message for low-memory installs - would be good to fix now
16:30:28 <adamw> ack
16:30:29 <brunowolff> ack
16:30:32 <kparal> that shows how much we read it :)
16:30:33 <adamw> er, too much ack!
16:30:50 <tflink> #topic (949323) Gnome Initial Setup does not offer opportunity to create non-root Administrator
16:30:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949323
16:30:55 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, MODIFIED
16:31:43 <kparal> this bug should be probably closed?
16:32:15 <kparal> as notabug
16:32:50 <brunowolff> +1 notabug
16:32:59 <adamw> well
16:33:14 <adamw> isn't admin status for PolicyKit different from just being in wheel? did we check g-i-s does that too?
16:33:17 * adamw tries to remember
16:33:18 <tflink> -1 FE, let devs and reporters figure out the rest
16:33:23 <adamw> right, that seems safe
16:33:46 <kparal> hmm, there appears to be groups 'wheel' and 'adm'
16:33:57 <kparal> wheel is probably for sudo and adm for PK?
16:34:12 <adamw> no
16:34:29 <adamw> adm is something else, i forget what, but not to do with PK. but i'll look into it outside of the meeting
16:34:39 <kparal> -1 anyway
16:34:42 <jreznik> -1 FE now
16:34:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949323 - RejectedFreezeException - This appears to have been at least partially by design and not severe enough to justify pulling past F19 alpha freeze. Thus, it is rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha
16:35:19 <jreznik> and I have to admit - I don't like solution like - let's move it to kickstart - not sure why one checkbox is such problem...
16:35:29 <jreznik> ack
16:35:38 <kparal> ack
16:36:17 <tflink> #agreed 949323 - RejectedFreezeException - This appears to have been at least partially by design and not severe enough to justify pulling past F19 alpha freeze. Thus, it is rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha
16:36:27 <tflink> #topic (949106) libreoffice-core drags in both openjdk 1.7.0 and 1.8.0
16:36:30 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949106
16:36:33 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libreoffice, ON_QA
16:37:45 <tflink> I'd be OK with FE on this for getting the desktop spin size down
16:37:55 <adamw> yeah, and it might help get the DVD under actual DVD size too
16:37:58 <adamw> they seem like wins
16:38:23 <kparal> +1
16:38:33 <adamw> the fix looks safe too
16:38:34 <adamw> +1
16:38:58 <brunowolff> +1 FE
16:39:20 <jreznik> +1 FE, seems ok
16:40:33 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949106 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix reduces the size of the desktop spin to be properly sized - while not an F19 alpha release criterion, would be good to fix before alpha.
16:40:35 <akshayvyas> +1 FE
16:40:48 <jreznik> ack
16:40:49 <adamw> ack
16:40:49 <akshayvyas> ack
16:41:53 <kparal> ack
16:42:23 <tflink> #agreed 949106 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix reduces the size of the desktop spin to be properly sized - while not an F19 alpha release criterion, would be good to fix before alpha.
16:42:35 <tflink> #topic (924425) Assertion failed on ppc64: g_object_class_install_property: assertion `pspec->flags & (G_PARAM_READABLE | G_PARAM_WRITABLE)' failed
16:42:38 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425
16:42:41 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, pygobject3, ON_QA
16:42:50 <tflink> so this is a "fe because it blocks secondary arch"
16:43:13 <kparal> secondary arches are affected by the freeze?
16:43:17 <jreznik> as I commented it - I'm generally ok with it
16:43:27 <jreznik> kparal: in the way how the release is done, yes
16:43:34 <tflink> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425#c16
16:43:36 <jreznik> kparal: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924425#c16
16:43:53 <jreznik> tflink: you were faster!
16:44:00 <tflink> jreznik: just barely
16:44:13 <adamw> i guess i'm okay with it too, but i always figured secondary arches could pull different packages into their pre-release builds...
16:44:35 <tflink> while I'm a little wary about pygobject fixes this late, it sounds relatively isolated
16:45:02 <adamw> about sums up how I feel
16:45:51 * jreznik would like to see more discussion on how we should handle secondary architectures and would like to see ideally no delays between primary and secondary archs releases...
16:46:10 <jreznik> pygobject is bug thing on the other hand
16:46:15 <jreznik> s/bug/big
16:47:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed 924425 - AcceptedFreezeException - While it does not affect PA, it seems to be a relatively small and isolated fix that is required for ppc/s390 to build pygobject.
16:47:51 <adamw> ack
16:48:05 <kparal> ack
16:48:13 <jreznik> ack (and afk for a sec, call of nature)
16:48:15 <brunowolff> ack
16:48:53 <tflink> #agreed 924425 - AcceptedFreezeException - While it does not affect PA, it seems to be a relatively small and isolated fix that is required for ppc/s390 to build pygobject.
16:49:00 <tflink> #topic (928927) FTBFS: python-pillow-2.0.0 on ppc64
16:49:00 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928927
16:49:00 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-pillow, ON_QA
16:49:14 <adamw> ditto above
16:50:35 <tflink> this is a bit larger fix, though
16:50:43 <tflink> what all needs python-pillow?
16:51:19 <adamw> it's the new python imaging library i think
16:51:22 <adamw> so probably lots of stuff
16:51:32 <jreznik> hmm, that patch scares me
16:51:37 <tflink> yeah, same here
16:51:53 <tflink> even if it has been submitted upstream
16:52:05 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928927#c11 seemed to suggest we could just tag a different build?
16:52:10 <adamw> i'm a bit confused by this one
16:52:41 <adamw> oh, i see, they had a workaround then there's a fix
16:52:50 <adamw> i'm kinda inclined to take the workaround if we can still do that
16:53:02 <tflink> I think I'm -1 on this without more testing
16:53:10 <adamw> i'd be +1 to the simple workaround, -1 to the big patch
16:53:36 <jreznik> +1 simple workaround, definitely -1 for the big one
16:53:52 <tflink> yeah, same here
16:55:46 <adamw> we can do that vote. i can explain in a bug comment.
16:56:06 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928927 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this would obviously be good to fix for ppc/s390, the large patch was deemed too risky to take this late in freeze and IS NOT part of the FreezeException. The workaround build w/o the test suite would be considered for inclusion after freeze
16:57:22 <adamw> ack
16:57:42 <jreznik> I can go with it, ack (trying to find sandro or dan but no success)
16:58:31 <tflink> #agreed 928927 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this would obviously be good to fix for ppc/s390, the large patch was deemed too risky to take this late in freeze and IS NOT part of the FreezeException. The workaround build w/o the test suite would be considered for inclusion after freeze
16:59:41 <tflink> that's all the proposed FE I'm seeing which are MODIFIED+
16:59:56 <tflink> there are 2 POSTs for systemd but the rest are NEW
17:00:42 <adamw> we can leave those for wednesday i guess
17:00:56 <jreznik> +1
17:01:13 * kparal 's laptop has a tendency to shut down unasked
17:01:18 * kparal back
17:01:58 <tflink> they sound like things that might be worth taking but I'm not sure about taking systemd builds days before go/no-go
17:02:19 <tflink> especially for things that sound as if they could be fixed post-install
17:02:44 <tflink> is the general consensus to skip the POST and NEW proposed FEs?
17:03:22 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949525 seems fix-worthy...
17:03:44 <tflink> yeah, that's the one I was looking at
17:03:57 <adamw> i'd be +1 to that.
17:04:00 <tflink> it could be fixed with an update, though
17:04:16 <tflink> and it does involve hacking at systemd days before go/no-go
17:05:02 <tflink> I'd be OK with just that patch
17:05:17 <tflink> but then again, my C-fu isn't the greatest
17:05:32 <tflink> #topic (949525) after net install f19 systemd ignores LANG=ja_JP.UTF-8 and runs in LANG=C locale
17:05:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949525
17:05:38 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, POST
17:05:41 <adamw> can it really be entirely fixed with an update?
17:05:56 <tflink> why wouldn't an update work?
17:06:07 <tflink> it looks like the bug is in root switching
17:06:11 <adamw> well, i guess it's a semantic question
17:06:14 <tflink> the fix, anyways
17:06:20 <adamw> an update would work, but you'd experience the bug at first install. eh.
17:06:23 <adamw> maybe an update is okay for alpha
17:06:28 * jreznik is more inclined to -1 now...
17:06:30 <adamw> i guess -1 on second thoughts
17:07:07 <tflink> yeah, i wouldn't be as OK with -1 on this for final
17:07:26 <tflink> but if I understand this properly, it could be fixed with a zero-day
17:07:40 <tflink> the only tough part would be lives but IIRC, those are all english anyways
17:07:52 <jreznik> yep
17:09:15 * kparal is still opening that bug
17:09:35 <adamw> -1 then?
17:09:47 <tflink> proposed #agreed 949525 - RejectedFreezeException - While an annoyance, this bug could be fixed with a zero-day update and is only seen post-install. Given the fixability, the fact that this is alpha and the risk of taking a systemd fix this late in freeze, rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha
17:09:54 * tflink was writing a novel
17:09:57 <tflink> :)
17:10:04 <adamw> ack
17:10:17 <jreznik> ack, and nobel prize for literature
17:10:37 * spstarr should just make sure I'm in here always
17:10:39 <brunowolff> ask
17:10:43 <tflink> #agreed 949525 - RejectedFreezeException - While an annoyance, this bug could be fixed with a zero-day update and is only seen post-install. Given the fixability, the fact that this is alpha and the risk of taking a systemd fix this late in freeze, rejected as a FreezeException for F19 alpha
17:11:08 <tflink> OK, I think that's all of the FEs we're going to review today
17:11:28 <tflink> on to non-VERIFIED accepted blockers
17:11:39 <tflink> #topic (929403) initial-setup-graphical.service is not enabled by default, so initial-setup does not run after install (KDE, LXDE, Xfce...)
17:11:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929403
17:11:45 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, initial-setup, MODIFIED
17:12:17 <spstarr> that one i trigger no firstboot starting up for KDE
17:12:35 <tflink> methinks this should be ON_QA
17:12:38 <adamw> this is mostly under control now, we just need to take the new initial-setup/systemd update and it should be good. hope it works, of courser.
17:12:50 <adamw> tflink: it goes to ON_QA when the update actually goes to repos.
17:12:54 <jreznik> it's already merged in bodhi
17:12:55 <tflink> bah, it is
17:13:14 <tflink> it seems that bodhi changes are usually scheduled during blocker review meetings
17:13:30 <tflink> #info needs testing, will be included in TC6/RC1
17:13:58 <tflink> #info moved to ON_QA during the meeting
17:14:02 <tflink> #topic (948615) Konqueror fails QA:Testcase_Desktop_Browser -- fails to allow access to FAS2 even with valid credentials
17:14:02 <spstarr> I'll test that w/ KDE when thats composed
17:14:05 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948615
17:14:08 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, kde-baseapps, ON_QA
17:14:36 <tflink> sounds like this can be moved to VERIFIED?
17:15:04 <tflink> #info this has been reported to be fixed with TC5
17:15:11 <adamw> looks that way
17:15:22 <tflink> #info move to VERIFIED
17:15:40 <tflink> mkrizek isn't here anymore
17:15:42 <jreznik> seems like and I agree with adamw that such test case could show such bug...
17:16:14 <tflink> oh, this isn't in TC5
17:16:26 <tflink> needs to be pulled in to TC6/RC1
17:16:53 <tflink> #info still needs to be pulled into TC6/RC1
17:17:22 <adamw> right.
17:17:26 <tflink> anything else on this?
17:18:05 * tflink assumes not
17:18:09 <tflink> #topic (926916) anaconda can't report traceback to bugzilla
17:18:09 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926916
17:18:09 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, libreport, ON_QA
17:18:22 <adamw> will be in TC6, just needs testing
17:18:23 <tflink> #info fix is ready for testing, waiting on TC6/RC1
17:18:27 <adamw> don't think we can really test it outside of a compose
17:18:30 <tflink> nope
17:18:38 <tflink> unless we do a smoke build
17:19:00 <tflink> it has to be baked into the install media, though
17:19:20 <adamw> yeah.
17:19:33 <adamw> don't do a smoke, i'll just bug nirik into doing it or something :P
17:19:40 <tflink> ok
17:19:42 * adamw trying to keep tflink out of the smoke trap
17:20:20 <tflink> I still haven't gotten set up for F19 smokes, so it would take me a while to do that anyways
17:20:53 <tflink> anyhow, that's all of the non-VERIFIED accepted blockers
17:20:57 <tflink> time for ...
17:21:02 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:21:09 <tflink> Anything else which needs to be discussed?
17:21:33 <kparal> have we discussed 928279?
17:21:38 <jreznik> no
17:21:47 <kparal> we should
17:21:53 <jreznik> the most important now
17:22:28 <tflink> oh, I missed one
17:22:31 <tflink> whoops
17:22:34 <tflink> #undo
17:22:34 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x2a74a590>
17:22:44 <tflink> #topic (928279) anaconda doesn't start on LiveCD (in Gnome)
17:22:44 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928279
17:22:44 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
17:23:32 <kparal> tl;dr: it seems that anaconda won't start if you get a dhcp hostname after gdm/kdm starts
17:23:38 <kparal> since xhost auth won't work
17:23:54 <adamw> i'd be -1 per the existing bug discussion
17:23:59 <adamw> e.g https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679486#c40
17:24:12 <kparal> dhcp hostnames, as stated in 679486, are mostly used in corporate networks and in direct connections to ISV
17:24:34 * tflink uses dhcp hostnames in his home network
17:24:37 <kparal> so the number of affected people should be limited, and there are easy workarounds
17:24:58 <kparal> 1) start without a network -or- 2) use xhost+ -or- 3) use sudo liveinst
17:25:26 <tflink> sounds -1 blocker, +1 CommonBugs to me
17:25:33 <adamw> at least for alpha, yeah
17:25:34 <tflink> for alpha, anyways
17:25:44 <adamw> possibly FE depending on the fix
17:25:49 <adamw> shall we mark it as a dupe of the old bug?
17:25:56 <jreznik> -1 blocker, +1 FE (as fix would be nice, it's shame we have it from F15 and I closed it as EOL...), +1 CommonBugs
17:25:59 <randomuser> wouldn't that include people who boot the liveimage, then put in their wireless network password?
17:26:31 <kparal> -1 Alpha. and I say we should propose it as Final blocker right away
17:26:54 <jreznik> adamw: there's a lot of info in the old bug, I'd merge it and reopen
17:27:06 <kparal> although the impact is limited but it's still not pretty
17:27:20 <adamw> randomuser: only if their hostname is then changed based on the DHCP response
17:27:37 <kparal> jreznik: I reopened it
17:27:47 * randomuser nods consideringly
17:27:53 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19.
17:27:56 <kparal> jreznik: feel free to dupe one or the other if you wish
17:27:59 <adamw> ack
17:28:00 <adamw> er
17:28:01 <adamw> patch
17:28:14 <adamw> close as dupe of 679486 and apply statuses to that bug
17:28:32 <jreznik> kparal: ah! and there's another one, I'll close it too (f18 korora one)
17:29:07 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. Close this particular bug as a dupe of #679486 and transfer all statuses to that bug. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19.
17:29:12 <adamw> ack
17:29:33 <kparal> ack
17:29:51 <jreznik> ack
17:29:53 <tflink> #agreed 928279 - RejectedBlocker - After more investigation, this has reasonable workarounds for alpha and shouldn't be too widespread. As such, it no longer needs to block the release of F19 alpha if documented as CommonBugs. Close this particular bug as a dupe of #679486 and transfer all statuses to that bug. If a fix is available in time, please re-propose as a FE for F19.
17:30:07 <tflink> did I miss any others from the list?
17:30:15 <smooge> Did you guys discuss Bug 949122? I don't see it on the blocker list. It needs a new kernel so install will work with some EFI boxes.
17:30:47 <smooge> can wait til Open Floor to discuss it
17:31:03 <kparal> it's not proposed as a blocker
17:31:09 <kparal> that's why it's not on the list
17:31:56 <smooge> ah I thought I had done that on my original bug, but I don't think I did correctly
17:32:04 <tflink> not enough info to make a blocker judgement, I think
17:32:23 <kparal> tflink: change topic?
17:32:59 <kparal> smooge: did pjones say this should affect all UEFI machines, or just Samsung ones?
17:33:09 <smooge> this isn't a Samsung box I am seeing it on
17:33:31 <smooge> so I am expecting more than Samsung.. but I don't know how manyh
17:33:32 <tflink> #topic (949122) Anaconda crashes on UEFI install [Anaconda 19 AlphaTC5]
17:33:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949122
17:33:37 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:33:38 <adamw> oh, i recall discussion of that one
17:33:46 <kparal> we can try to verify tomorrow, now that we know how to work around the hostname bug
17:33:56 <kparal> on a Asus board
17:33:59 <tflink> do we have a fix right now?
17:34:00 <adamw> so the fix for the samsung bug causes problems on some other systems
17:34:30 <adamw> basically a false positive on the check for whether the efivars space is full
17:35:00 <kparal> smooge: please put AlphaBlocker in the Blocks: field and we will discuss it on wednesday. in that time we might have more information
17:35:06 <tflink> if we don't have a fix for this right now, I'd say leave it for wednesday
17:35:19 <tflink> and ask for more information on severity and # of affected systems
17:35:58 <adamw> we don't have an absolute number, but pjones thinks it may affect quite a few uefi systems
17:36:02 <tflink> #info this needs more information and a proper proposal
17:36:12 <tflink> #info will discuss at the next blocker review meeting
17:36:22 <tflink> anything else?
17:36:41 <tflink> for this bug, I mean
17:37:11 <smooge> done
17:37:24 <tflink> then it's time for ...
17:37:24 <smooge> not from me. Tell me what I need to do to get you info
17:37:28 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:38:02 <tflink> smooge: mostly what the fix is, how many systems we suspect would be affected
17:38:05 <smooge> ok I am not affected by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928228 anymore. Do I close it or someone else
17:38:21 <adamw> it's already closed.
17:38:31 <smooge> oops. stupid window
17:38:39 <smooge> I thought I was opening all my open bugs
17:39:03 <smooge> ok how about this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868421 .. put it in for a BetaBlocker?
17:39:43 <kparal> I tried to have it as a F17 final blocker IIRC
17:39:49 <kparal> rejected
17:39:58 <tflink> kparal: I thought it was more F18+
17:40:02 <adamw> if we have to discuss that bug one more time i'll shoot someone
17:40:03 <adamw> :LP
17:40:08 <kparal> ah, F18
17:40:09 <adamw> could someone just fix the damn thing?
17:40:16 <tflink> +100
17:40:27 <tflink> this bug annoys me
17:40:56 <kparal> just ask zodbot to ping harald every 10 minutes "is it fixed yet?"
17:41:02 <adamw> a definite plan
17:41:06 <smooge> I know it doesn't fit Alpha.. so would Beta be good?
17:41:13 <kparal> actually, that would be a cool feature of zodbot
17:41:18 <kparal> massively used
17:41:24 <adamw> i don't really see that we can possibly make it a beta blocker if we rejected it for final for f18
17:41:28 <adamw> at max we can re-consider final blocker
17:41:29 <smooge> nah he would just ignore zodbot like he ignores this blog
17:41:38 * jreznik will start pinging kparal every 1 minute, just to test this feature
17:41:41 <tflink> smooge: you could try but if it failed F18 final blocker, I don't see how it would make it as f19 beta
17:41:48 <kparal> jreznik: :P
17:42:06 <smooge> adamw, tflink because you guys re-evaluate what meets alpha/beta/final every time
17:42:12 <adamw> we try not to.
17:42:20 <adamw> half the point of having a process is to be consistent.
17:42:23 <smooge> AND you didn't make it final because you were promised a post release fix which never came up.
17:42:46 <smooge> so I am claiming "Pants on fire" urgency
17:42:48 * kparal mutters it was to be expected
17:42:50 <adamw> i don't know if we were promised anything, we just said that it _can_ be fixed with a post-release update, which is an important consideration when deciding whether a bug is a blocker
17:43:35 <adamw> but anyway, we can't stop you proposing it as whatever you like, it's up to you
17:43:48 <adamw> come with a decent grounding in the criteria or expect pain, though ;)
17:44:15 <kparal> that's easy, the system must boot to firstboot criterion ;)
17:44:34 <tflink> kparal: workaround is watch for the prompt
17:44:43 <jreznik> and as we don't have firsboot anymore but initial-setup, no problem
17:44:50 <jreznik> let's move guys, time to go home :)
17:44:54 <tflink> but I don't want to have this discussion now
17:44:54 <smooge> I am going to go with RHEL-7  blocker
17:45:04 <kparal> jreznik: we are, except for you :)
17:45:08 <tflink> if there's nothing else, I'm going to set the fuze
17:45:11 <adamw> as that doesn't involve me, i'm all in favour of it
17:45:14 <tflink> fuse even
17:45:28 <kparal> smooge: thumbs up
17:45:35 <jreznik> ok, so looks like we are clear for RC request, aren't we?
17:46:17 <adamw> mostly.
17:47:02 * adamw will bug nirik
17:47:10 <tflink> either way, nothing else for the meeting?
17:47:18 <jreznik> adamw: thanks
17:47:50 <smooge> thank you guys.
17:47:58 * tflink sets fuse for [0,5] minutes
17:48:31 <tflink> #info the next F19 Alpha Blocker Review Meeting will be on 2012-04-08 @ 16:00 UTC
17:49:24 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
17:49:33 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
17:49:35 <jreznik> thanks tflink!
17:49:37 <robatino> your time is off
17:49:37 <tflink> #endmeeting