15:59:25 <roshi> #startmeeting F21-blocker-review
15:59:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 23 15:59:25 2014 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:59:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:59:25 <roshi> #meetingname F21-blocker-review
15:59:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review'
15:59:25 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
15:59:35 <roshi> so who's here for some blockery goodness?
15:59:53 * roshi is here, obviously
16:00:13 * tflink can be here for the meeting but has other things he needs to work on if there are otherwise enough people present
16:00:45 * mkrizek lurks
16:00:47 * kparal is here
16:00:50 * satellit_e listening
16:01:02 <roshi> ping adamw
16:01:03 <kparal> pschindl: poke
16:01:18 <kparal> lbrabec: welcome
16:01:23 * kalev is here.
16:01:32 * pschindl is here
16:01:55 <adamw> roshi: yo
16:01:56 * pwhalen is here
16:03:21 * beadle is auditing hope that's ok
16:03:21 <roshi> cool - looks like we have enough people
16:03:31 <roshi> who wants to secretarialize?
16:03:35 <lbrabec> kparal: hi
16:03:48 <roshi> for sure beadle - glad to have you :)
16:03:53 <beadle> :)
16:03:58 <roshi> don't be afraid to ask questions if you have them
16:04:17 <roshi> here's the SOP for what we'll be doing in this meeting, if you want to take a look
16:04:20 <roshi> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:04:29 <beadle> thanks!
16:04:38 <roshi> #chair adamw kparal pschindl
16:04:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal pschindl roshi
16:04:51 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:04:51 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:04:51 <roshi> #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.
16:04:55 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:04:58 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:05:00 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:05:02 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:05:05 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:05:07 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:05:11 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:05:14 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
16:05:42 <roshi> onto the first blocker
16:05:49 <roshi> only 5 proposed today
16:05:56 <roshi> #topic (1110764) Fedora Server: Cockpit installed and socket enabled by default
16:05:59 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110764
16:06:01 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, cockpit, MODIFIED
16:08:01 <kparal> I'm not clear why it is a blocker
16:08:20 <kparal> so, it should be on by default and it's not
16:08:21 <roshi> it's not even a bug, AIUI
16:08:41 <kparal> but it doesn't seem to be covered by our criteria, esp. Alpha
16:08:49 <roshi> and it look slike it's fixed
16:08:51 <roshi> yeah
16:08:56 <adamw> yes it is.
16:08:56 <roshi> -1
16:08:57 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Cockpit_management_interface
16:08:58 <stefw> it's part of the Fedora Server release criteria
16:09:07 <adamw> "Unless explicitly specified otherwise, after system installation the Cockpit web management interface must be running and accessible on its default port (XX). "
16:09:13 <adamw> the bug is basically written directly against the criterion.
16:09:13 <roshi> oh, *that* criteria
16:09:27 <kparal> ugh, I'll need to carefully study the new criteria
16:09:44 <kparal> well in that case it's a clear blocker
16:09:46 <roshi> but it's fixed at this point it looks like, comment 4
16:10:20 <kparal> roshi: just modified, not pushed to stable. so we still need to vote on it. it can take a long time until it's pushed
16:10:42 <adamw> yeah, so +1.
16:10:47 <roshi> true - I was just making sure I read it right :)
16:10:47 <kparal> +1
16:10:51 <roshi> yeah +1
16:11:11 <kalev> +1
16:11:56 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1110764 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear cut violation of the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX). "
16:12:36 <kparal> ack
16:12:36 <pschindl> ack
16:12:50 <kalev> ack
16:12:52 <roshi> #agreed - 1110764 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear cut violation of the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX)."
16:13:03 <kalev> I'd like to note that we aren't in a freeze yet and likely won't get there for another 2 or 3 weeks
16:13:15 <kalev> there's a fesco ticket open to push out the alpha freeze
16:13:17 <roshi> who's playing secretary today?
16:13:27 <roshi> yeah
16:13:50 <roshi> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1178 for anyone who wants a look
16:13:57 <roshi> onto the next bug
16:14:08 <roshi> #topic (1122128) Regression: GVariant encoding of array of doubles
16:14:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122128
16:14:13 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, glib2, MODIFIED
16:14:20 <stefw> ^^ prevents cockpit from running
16:15:15 <kalev> a clear blocker, but already fixed and since we aren't in a freeze, it doesn't really matter if it gets accepted as a blocker or not
16:15:29 <adamw> i'll secretaryize
16:15:34 <kparal> thanks
16:16:10 <roshi> thanks adamw :)
16:16:50 <roshi> +1
16:17:02 <kparal> it seems this is connected to the same criterion
16:17:03 <kparal> +1
16:17:07 <roshi> yeah
16:17:11 <kalev> +1
16:17:25 <adamw> +1
16:17:33 <kparal> stefw: it's appreciated if you can provide some short explanation while nominating the bugs as blockers, especially if you can't attend the meeting
16:17:53 <stefw> k, will do
16:18:13 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1122128 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX)."
16:18:19 <kparal> ack
16:18:28 <pschindl> ack
16:18:30 <kalev> ack
16:18:35 * stefw is learning how this works. it was suggested to me that they were blockers
16:18:45 <roshi> #agreed - 1122128 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX)."
16:19:20 <roshi> it just makes it easier for us to vote on them stefw - if they have the criteria there we don't have to try and decypher it
16:19:27 <stefw> makes sense
16:19:32 <roshi> we try
16:19:39 <roshi> (sometimes at least)
16:19:42 <roshi> :)
16:19:52 <roshi> #topic (1110758) SELinux prevents cockpit from working on Fedora 21
16:19:55 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110758
16:19:58 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, POST
16:20:09 <roshi> and there's another :)
16:20:53 <roshi> +1, looks the same as the last two :)
16:21:05 <kparal> +1 once again
16:21:19 <pwhalen> +1
16:21:20 <kalev> +1
16:21:42 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1110758 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX)."
16:21:57 <adamw> +1
16:22:05 <adamw> ack
16:22:10 <adamw> sorry, catching up with secretary
16:22:15 <kparal> ack
16:22:18 <roshi> no worries
16:22:25 <pwhalen> ack
16:22:35 <roshi> #agreed - 1110758 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha Cockpit management interface criteria: "...the Cockpit web management interface must be  running and accessible on its default port (XX)."
16:22:54 <roshi> next but then
16:23:09 <roshi> s/but/bug
16:23:15 <roshi> only two left
16:23:16 <roshi> #topic (1121301) Extensive mislabelling of /usr and/or /var on some Fedora 21 / Rawhide live images prevents them booting unless enforcing=0 is passed
16:23:19 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121301
16:23:22 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, ASSIGNED
16:24:03 <roshi> +1
16:24:03 <kalev> I think this one is misassigned, should be assigned to livecd-tools for investigation
16:24:10 <kalev> doesn't look like a selinux-policy issue
16:24:19 <adamw> so, i guess to be sure i need to check if the mislabelings still cause boot fail if /etc is fixed since /etc seems to be a different issue, but i'm pretty sure it's still bad news.
16:24:24 <kalev> but +1, yes
16:24:31 <pschindl> +1
16:24:32 <adamw> kalev: i think your theory is *interesting*, but i'm not sure it's *right*.
16:24:52 <kparal> +1
16:24:59 <adamw> kalev: did you see my reply to it? the dates on which stuff went wrong don't really line up with the error messages, and the presence or absence of that error and the presence or absence of mislabelings don't match up.
16:25:49 <adamw> anyway, both selinux-policy maintainers and livecd-tools maintainer are aware of the bug, so i'm not sure it's a big problem who it's assigned to, i hope everyone relevant knows it needs investigating/fixing
16:25:59 <kalev> adamw: if my theory there is correct, then the mislabellings should vary all the time
16:26:43 <kalev> sometimes more mislabellings, sometimes less -- depending on if the kernel decided to write out the non-unmounted image data or not
16:26:43 <pwhalen> +1
16:26:56 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1121301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha SELinux configuration: "...SELinux must be enabled and in enforcing mode."
16:27:04 <roshi> er
16:27:12 <kparal> not that one
16:27:14 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1121301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha SELinux configuration criteria: "...SELinux must be enabled and in enforcing mode."
16:27:38 <kalev> it's more like "This bug violates the Alpha criteria that the images must boot."
16:27:43 <kparal> I think it is enabled and enforcing
16:27:52 <adamw> ack
16:27:54 <kparal> > Proposing as an Alpha release blocker, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot , "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
16:27:58 <kparal> from the bug report
16:28:02 <adamw> er, yeah, use that criterion please
16:28:06 <roshi> ah - I was going against the workaround in my head
16:28:13 <adamw> selinux is certainly enabled and in enforcing mode. we're not violating that one. :P
16:28:39 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1121301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha images must boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported  configurations."
16:28:41 <pschindl> ack
16:28:44 <kalev> ack
16:29:24 <adamw> ack
16:29:29 <roshi> #agreed - 1121301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha images must boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported  configurations."
16:29:40 <kparal> ack
16:29:46 <roshi> last proposed bug
16:29:47 <roshi> #topic (1121806) /etc/passwd- , /etc/group- and /etc/.updated mislabeled in Fedora 21 and Rawhide live images
16:29:50 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121806
16:29:53 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, ON_QA
16:30:20 <adamw> this one's split out from that one, turns out the cause of the /etc mislabeling is likely different
16:30:28 <adamw> we should be able to test the fix with today's images, i think
16:30:33 <adamw> +1, obviously
16:30:37 <kalev> +1
16:30:41 <roshi> +1
16:30:47 <kparal> +1
16:30:52 <pschindl> ₊
16:30:59 <pschindl> +1
16:31:12 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1121806 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha images must boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported  configurations."
16:31:51 <kparal> ack
16:31:55 <kalev> ack
16:32:10 <pwhalen> +1/ack
16:32:16 <roshi> #agreed - 1121806 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Alpha images must boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported  configurations."
16:32:47 <roshi> onto reviewing accepted blockers? Anyone got anything before we move on?
16:33:21 <beadle> roshi:could this bug explain what I reported to you?
16:34:01 <kparal> roshi: proposed FE should come first
16:34:16 <roshi> we're not in freeze
16:34:23 <roshi> so no need for an exception
16:34:39 <roshi> least ways, we haven't been doing FEs for that reason thus far
16:34:48 <kparal> ah, right
16:35:07 <kparal> if we intend to skip them, yeah, we can go to reviewing accepted blockers
16:35:08 <adamw> if we're actually freezing now we should do 'em, but assuming it's definitely going to get pushed out, not needed
16:35:37 <roshi> also, the SOP has review accepted before proposed FEs
16:35:49 <roshi> I think it's a question of how long we push out, not if
16:35:56 <roshi> would be my guess anyway
16:36:37 <roshi> could be beadle
16:37:07 <beadle> roshi: thanks.'
16:37:08 <roshi> so, onto accepted blockers then?
16:38:50 <beadle> respect and regrets - gotta go
16:39:15 <roshi> #topic (1111417) anaconda should depend on NetworkManager-wifi
16:39:15 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111417
16:39:16 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
16:40:18 <roshi> looks good from here
16:40:22 <roshi> just waiting on review
16:40:29 <adamw> 21.48 was built four days ago
16:40:30 * satellit_e wifi has worked here lately
16:40:58 * adamw sets it to ON_QA
16:41:02 <adamw> satellit_e: in boot.iso images?
16:41:23 <satellit_e> no new boot.iso for f21 lately
16:41:32 <satellit_e> 3 days
16:43:05 * satellit_e http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/21/x86_64/
16:43:09 <kalev> I would suspect releng has axed the boot.iso
16:43:10 <adamw> satellit_e: this bug is specifically for traditional installer images, not lives
16:43:17 <satellit_e> ok
16:43:25 <satellit_e> cannot test it
16:44:37 <roshi> onto the next?
16:44:50 <kalev> wouldn't it be possible to just close the bug, since it's clearly fixed?
16:45:21 <roshi> where's the boot.iso with the fix?
16:45:27 * roshi can test it
16:45:38 <satellit_e> boot-21-0721.iso  worked  last one
16:45:38 <roshi> then close if all seems well
16:47:13 <adamw> 0721 should be new enough
16:47:26 <adamw> kalev: i'll find an image somewhere to test it with, don't worry. it's on my todo now.
16:47:46 <roshi> sounds good - thanks adamw
16:48:11 <roshi> #topic (1109603) dracut unable to boot 3.16 most of the time
16:48:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109603
16:48:12 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, cloud-initramfs-tools, NEW
16:49:01 <roshi> looks like it could use some poking
16:49:06 <adamw> this one's been sitting there for a while
16:49:07 <adamw> yeah
16:50:16 <adamw> do we have a dgilmore or a pwhalen?
16:50:44 * roshi rummages through his stuff
16:51:03 <pwhalen> on this one, we made a change to the ks to verify, unfortunately not to all branches, it was fixed yesterday and i will test
16:51:29 <adamw> thanks, can we leave it with you or is any other action reqwuired?
16:51:31 <roshi> there, found one :)
16:51:35 <pwhalen> to verify this is an issue with cloud-initramfs-tools
16:51:49 <jreznik> hey, sorry I'm late - I have a meeting at this time I lead, so no way to follow blocker meeting for me :(
16:51:50 <pwhalen> no, will know today
16:51:56 <pwhalen> thanks for the offer
16:52:33 <roshi> thanks pwhalen :)
16:52:46 <roshi> #topic (1116478) [abrt] gnome-initial-setup: gdk_window_hide(): gnome-initial-setup killed by SIGSEGV
16:52:49 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116478
16:52:51 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
16:53:38 <adamw> haven't seen much happening on this
16:53:47 <roshi> looks that way
16:54:36 <roshi> any tests with this since 07-17?
16:55:05 <adamw> been sort of distracted by the selinux explosions
16:55:40 * adamw was actually intending to test something *else* when he got sidetracked into the selinux stuff and can't even remember what that was any more, never mind this.
16:55:40 <roshi> lol
16:55:42 <adamw> but it doesn't seem like something that's going to get magically fixed, anyway.
16:55:56 <roshi> I was meaning more has *anyone* tested this, not have you got to it
16:56:19 <kalev> gnome-initial-setup hasn't gotten much attention upstream this cycle and pretty much everybody who could fix it is going to GUADEC tomorrow
16:56:36 <kalev> might be best to postpone that one for a week since the freeze isn't pressing that much right now
16:57:36 * satellit_e I always use root and user password in my tests here
16:57:47 <adamw> see also upstream https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733555
16:59:39 <roshi> well, if you're figuring out valgrind and the main devs are off for summer fun for a week, maybe just revisit next week?
17:00:21 <adamw> sure,
17:00:32 <adamw> it's not valgrind i'm figuring out, it's getting g-i-s to run inside it.
17:00:33 <roshi> (for loose definitions of summer fun, I guess :P )
17:00:39 <roshi> well, yeah
17:01:05 <roshi> valgrind is much like a blender; easy to use, but... will it blend?!
17:03:02 <roshi> next to review then?
17:03:10 <roshi> or are people clocking out for the fesco meeting?
17:04:31 * jreznik is now trying to follow fesco meeting, wednesday evening is really funny time for me ...
17:05:00 <roshi> yeah
17:07:11 <roshi> if people are vacating, we should just postpone or hold until next week
17:07:14 <roshi> thoughts?
17:10:02 <dgilmore> adamw: im here
17:10:17 <adamw> dgilmore: already answered, thanks
17:10:22 <adamw> roshi: i think we covered what we need to...
17:10:23 <roshi> pwhalen: took care of it dgilmore :)
17:10:35 * roshi was kinda getting that vibe
17:10:46 <roshi> if no one has anything else, I'll set the fuse
17:13:50 <roshi> well, thanks for coming folks!
17:13:56 <roshi> #endmeeting