16:03:34 #startmeeting F21-blocker-review 16:03:34 Meeting started Wed Oct 22 16:03:34 2014 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:03:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:03:34 #meetingname F21-blocker-review 16:03:34 The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review' 16:03:35 #topic Roll Call 16:03:44 who's around? 16:03:48 * kparal is here 16:04:23 * jskladan lurks 16:04:39 * roshi is here, obviously 16:04:53 #chair kparal jskladan adamw 16:04:53 Current chairs: adamw jskladan kparal roshi 16:05:19 danofsatx: you here? 16:05:26 sorry, yup 16:05:38 nothing to be sorry about :) 16:05:43 ahoy 16:05:50 sgallagh: blocker review starting 16:05:56 building purchase requests on outdated Core2Duos takes a lot of my time.... 16:05:58 ahoy 16:06:20 * sgallagh sneaks out to microwave some popcorn^H lunch first 16:06:31 * agrimm lurks 16:07:06 sorry for the late announcement :( 16:07:10 #topic Introduction 16:07:11 Why are we here? 16:07:11 #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. 16:07:15 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:07:15 * jsmith joins a bit late 16:07:17 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:07:19 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:07:22 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:07:25 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:07:27 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:07:30 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:07:33 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria 16:07:50 well, 9 blockers to look through 16:07:56 * jskladan yay! 16:08:00 first up: 16:08:01 #topic (1155014) DeviceCreateError: ("'NoneType' object has no attribute 'name'", 'fedora-pool00') 16:08:04 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155014 16:08:07 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST 16:08:09 +1 blocker for me 16:08:44 * roshi has been trying to look at the blockers *before* the meeting 16:09:02 +1 16:09:08 +1 16:09:25 roshi: there should be a badge for that! 16:09:49 good idea kparal :) 16:09:55 I've been squishing them, does that count? 16:09:56 i was too, but didn't reach this one yet 16:10:22 god, why does this break whenever I turn my fing back? 16:10:26 i tested it for alpha and it was fine 16:10:55 proposed #agreed - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta Guided partitioning criteria. 16:10:57 nack 16:11:02 the criterion cited does not cover this. 16:11:14 eh? 16:11:14 filesystem selection isn't in guided any more, it's in custom. 16:11:20 ah 16:11:49 proposed #agreed - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta custom partitioning criteria: "Complete an installation using any combination of disk configuration options it allows the user to select" 16:11:53 better? 16:12:04 no, because that's not a custom criterion. :) 16:12:41 the custom criterion is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning , just go copy/paste it... 16:12:43 * roshi needs more coffee 16:13:06 we would actually have a slight bit of wiggle room here as it doesn't *say* thinp, only 'LVM', but I'd be inclined to take it. 16:13:44 * jreznik will join you later 16:14:04 proposed #agreed - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta custom partitioning criteria: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes..." 16:14:17 (so much for me getting us off to a fast start...) 16:14:56 still no 16:14:59 one more strike... 16:15:04 "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions " 16:15:12 the one you cited is interpreting existing, not creating new. 16:15:35 .fire roshi 16:15:35 adamw fires roshi 16:15:51 I've never seen anyone get fired before... 16:15:54 * jsmith blinks 16:16:03 jsmith: you don't hang around with me much, do you? :) 16:16:13 proposed #agreed - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta custom partitioning criteria: "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes..." 16:16:16 adamw: Obviously not, or you'd have fired me too! 16:16:17 there 16:16:32 .fire jsmith for not hanging around enough to be fired before :p 16:16:32 adamw fires jsmith for not hanging around enough to be fired before :p 16:16:47 it's a rite of passage jsmith - welcome to the club 16:17:02 I'm honored... 16:17:27 :) 16:17:30 can I ack already? 16:17:30 ack/nack/patch? 16:17:36 ack 16:17:42 ack 16:17:43 ack 16:17:52 #agreed - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta custom partitioning criteria: "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes..." 16:18:03 #topic (1155633) anaconda doesn't use "url --mirrorlist" option from kickstart, uses stage2 instead 16:18:06 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155633 16:18:08 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 16:18:44 i'm currently on this one 16:18:53 it sounds somewhat weird... 16:19:15 is anything wrong in the ks? 16:19:21 * roshi hasn't used them much 16:19:23 i've tested that just booting bare kernel/initrd and passing 'stage2' on the cmdline works as expected (downloads stage2 then defaults to 'closest mirror' for the repo) 16:19:33 i'm now testing a ks similar to the reporter (with mirrorlist) 16:19:35 jsedlak forgot to attach log files, oh my 16:19:49 just waiting for the stage2 download 16:20:08 he actually said he saw an error also with netinst and the same kickstart 16:20:46 Yeah, that does sound weird 16:20:57 which would hit that criterion 16:21:05 he doesn't list a package group in his kickstart 16:21:08 solely 'chrony' 16:21:22 * sgallagh had a hard crash. Which one are we on now? 16:21:24 i just tried an install with https://www.happyassassin.net/ks/base-net.ks and it seems to be running fine 16:21:37 "Installing linux-firmware (7/252?" 16:21:59 in that case, let's reject and ask him to test more and append logs 16:22:08 that's booted from bare kernel/initramfs, with inst.stage2=https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Beta_TC4/Server/x86_64/os/images/pxeboot/ inst.ks=https://www.happyassassin.net/ks/base-net.ks 16:22:10 so...can't reproduce 16:22:16 -1 16:22:27 i can test with his kickstart very quickly 16:22:30 adamw: well actually, that location contains valid yum metadata 16:22:35 the point is, our doesn't 16:23:10 and as inst.stage2 is defined, it should not look for that metadata 16:23:23 kparal: ooh, i see. missed that bit. are you sure inst.stage2 doesn't expect a repo? 16:23:50 the current anaconda documentation seems to be here: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/anaconda.git/tree/docs/boot-options.txt 16:24:06 yes 16:24:09 (really, they point to git to this file from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda_Boot_Options) 16:24:19 === inst.stage2 === 16:24:19 This specifies the location to fetch only the installer runtime image; 16:24:19 packages will be ignored. Otherwise the same as <>. 16:24:20 to me, "Otherwise the same as <> implies "must be a repo" 16:24:33 well, "packages will be ignored" 16:24:36 it says packages will be ignored, not that it's OK for it not to include metadata 16:25:00 does the internal repo have a .treeinfo file? 16:25:08 ok, PRs done. Now what are we doing over here? oh yeah...blockers 16:25:08 I think the point of stage2 is to have only stage2 image mirrored, but pull packages from net 16:25:33 adamw: should it be in os/ ? 16:25:37 kparal: yes 16:25:40 it is not there 16:25:41 https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Beta_TC4/Server/x86_64/os/.treeinfo 16:25:52 well it's definitely going to need at least that, because that's how anaconda knows where stage2 is 16:26:11 it was succesfull in downloading it :) 16:26:25 otherwise it wouldn't have booted at all 16:26:41 but got it, that might be a problem 16:26:42 oh, hm, it seems to have a fallback, yeah 16:26:55 dracut/anaconda-netroot.sh 16:27:53 oh man, looking at that file just gave me some unpleasant f...16...? flashback. the nfs hack from then is still around, hah. 16:28:08 so...i guess i can be persuaded this should work, but i'm probably -1 on it being a blocker 16:28:26 the basic use case (boot from bare kernel, point it at a typical location for stage2) works 16:28:36 I'm unhappy about the lack of information there, I'd rather punt 16:28:58 * adamw dislikes not explicitly making a decision before release... 16:29:12 in that case, -1, because it worked for you 16:29:33 I'm a -1 since we're so close to release, if further info crops up we can repropose it for final 16:29:48 sounds good to me 16:29:49 yeah, i think -1-but-ok-to-repropose-with-more-data is good 16:30:21 proposed #agreed - 1155633 - RejectedBlocker - We were unable to reproduce this bug. If more information can be provided, please re-propose for Final. 16:30:55 AACK 16:31:03 ack 16:31:04 ack 16:31:08 ack 16:31:23 #agreed - 1155633 - RejectedBlocker - We were unable to reproduce this bug. If more information can be provided, please re-propose for Final. 16:31:37 way to get into the moment there jsmith :p 16:31:51 #topic (1155334) [abrt] bind: gssapi_destroy_signverify_ctx(): named killed by SIGBUS 16:31:54 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155334 16:31:56 #info Proposed Blocker, bind, NEW 16:32:03 roshi: The internet on this flight is terrible, so I'm having pretty good latency :-( 16:32:09 is anyone secretary-izing? 16:32:18 not yet 16:32:21 volunteers? 16:32:22 roshi: Actually, MODIFIED, not NEW anymore :) 16:32:43 pspacek and I tracked it down and fixed it this morning. 16:32:44 i can do it 16:32:48 It's pretty serious 16:32:57 so I see, blockerbugs must not have updated in time when I yanked the text 16:33:03 thanks adamw 16:34:03 +1 16:34:11 pretty clear violation, imo 16:34:15 sgallagh: wow, that was quick. What was the problem (if you know)? 16:34:45 danofsatx: Basically a typo :-/ 16:34:48 +1, it basically makes freeipa useless 16:34:49 +1 16:34:51 heh 16:34:56 oh yeah, +1 16:34:58 sgallagh: haha! i've infected you with the 'basicallys' 16:35:10 thozza is sick but he will take a look tomorrow, just heads up 16:35:27 jreznik_pp: Take a look at what? 16:36:02 proposed #agreed - 1155334 - This is a clear violation of the Domain controller role Beta criteria: " Multiple clients must be able to enrol and unenrol in the domain" 16:36:21 shouldn't it be disenrol? 16:36:29 possibly? 16:36:30 er, disenroll 16:36:38 that and the other bits of that criterion, yeah 16:36:39 ack 16:36:43 there are two l's in it 16:36:52 ack 16:36:52 i think... 16:36:55 ack 16:37:03 enroll has two lls 16:37:10 I usually say "join" and "part" myself 16:37:14 #agreed - 1155334 - This is a clear violation of the Domain controller role Beta criteria: " Multiple clients must be able to enrol and unenrol in the domain..." 16:37:30 http://grammarist.com/spelling/enrol-enroll/ 16:37:32 (Well, 'join to' and 'part from') 16:37:35 * dustymabe lurks 16:37:50 welcome dustymabe :) 16:38:08 arrogant Americans again, I guess ;) 16:38:22 #topic (1146580) Mislabelled /usr/sbin, /usr/bin after fedup 16:38:23 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146580 16:38:23 #info Proposed Blocker, fedup-dracut, ASSIGNED 16:38:44 roshi: thanks. starting to get hungry so I may run out and grab lunch and eat it while i lurk 16:38:48 Sounds like a blocker to me... 16:40:16 we were still waiting for details on *exactly* what breaks here, which is why it's sitting undetermined 16:40:27 unfortunately the other fedup fixes didn't land yesterday so we didn't get more testing on this 16:40:53 " The first thing I hit was libvirt over ssh hitting problems; but then I relabelled /sbin and /usr/bin" 16:41:01 if he hadn't done that i strongly suspect he'd have hit much worse problems pretty fast. 16:41:28 Yeah, I agree 16:41:33 +1 blocker 16:41:43 +1 16:41:48 +1 16:41:54 still, one thing that occurs to me is that we require people to explicitly provide the fedup location prior to stable release 16:42:40 and we do seem to get builds in https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/21/x86_64/os/images/pxeboot/ , which i guess are generated nightly? 16:42:57 it's just a bit questionable whether we actually need to have this fixed in the frozen beta. 16:43:12 it'll only actually affect someone running fedup against the upgrade.img in the frozen beta tree. 16:44:30 proposed #agreed - 1146580 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the upgrade requirements Beta criteria: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed. ... Upgraded system requirements: The upgraded system must meet all release criteria." 16:44:54 i guess i could ack that...but i'd like to remind myself exactly what fedup does if you don't pass instrepo... 16:46:10 it uses some mirrormanager link 16:46:20 which points to the latest public milestone 16:46:26 Alpha Beta or Final 16:46:37 of course provided fedora infra set it up 16:46:56 they could point it to some TC compose as well, I assume 16:47:15 mm 16:47:21 but I don't know if there were some F21 changes 16:47:30 i guess ack for now, we can fudge at go/no-go meeting if necessary/appropriate 16:47:30 I'm saying what I remember from F20 16:47:38 yeah, that's kinda what i wanted to check 16:47:55 ack 16:48:13 * satellit late - listening 16:48:29 mirrorurl = mirrorlist('fedora-install-$releasever') 16:49:07 doesn't work yet at all: mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-install-21&arch=x86_64 16:49:16 damn firefox, add http 16:49:25 but this does: http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-install-20&arch=x86_64 16:49:47 so I'd say someone forgot to set it up for Alpha 16:49:54 https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-install-21&arch=x86_64 isn't set up right now 16:49:55 ...yeah 16:50:12 or it's just that we don't ever set it up pre-release, don't we always wind up having to pass --instrepo ? 16:50:14 anyhow. 16:50:26 nirik: can you shed any light? 16:51:02 I remember it used to work for F20 Beta 16:51:05 * dustymabe is going to grab lunch. will be back in 20 16:51:20 the mirrorlist pointed to F20 Beta dir 16:51:23 adamw: nirik is out this week 16:51:25 oh right 16:51:32 .fire nirik 16:51:32 adamw fires nirik 16:51:45 see jsmith? it's common :) 16:51:46 so let's say ack for now and we can fudge at go/no-go if we want 16:52:17 kk 16:52:20 #agreed - 1146580 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the upgrade requirements Beta criteria: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed. ... Upgraded system requirements: The upgraded system must meet all release criteria." 16:52:32 #topic (1071356) Racy startup of ipa.service, named.service and dirsrv.target 16:52:35 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071356 16:52:37 #info Proposed Blocker, freeipa, NEW 16:53:43 adamw: is this the clientside permutation of the earlier bug? 16:54:45 ah, c#24 16:55:03 i didn't see this one, but then i didn't test many reboots or anything because of the named crash bug 16:55:43 OK, this is different 16:55:55 It's irrespective of the named crash 16:56:03 (we reproduced it after the fix for it) 16:56:10 ah 16:56:20 That being said, it's got a very simple workaround; run 'ipactl restart' 16:56:22 I'm not seeing this one at all. ipa.service starts just fine (once it's deployed) 16:56:27 c25 says the workaround is easy 16:56:36 -1 update common bugs? 16:56:44 That's my recommendation as well 16:56:48 -1 *and* update common bugs? rather 16:56:56 -1 and update common bugs 16:57:12 -1 and update common bugs 16:57:16 can we expect a fix for this for Final? 16:57:29 (Also, I haven't validated it for certain, but the way we install from rolekit may actually mitigate it as well) 16:57:36 c25 doesn't give me warm fuzzies, so I'd say no 16:57:54 roshi: I will push them on it, but I'm not certain. 16:57:57 yeah, this seems like the kind of thing that's OK for a beta 16:58:08 I read the "today" as not going to get in for Beta go/no-go tomorrow 16:58:23 Right, that much is certain 16:58:46 I know enough about how this interacts to say that it's anyone's guess if it's fixed by Final though. 16:58:49 It's... ugly 16:59:03 proposed #agreed - 1071356 - RejectedBlocker - There is a easy to apply fix for this bug so it's not considered blocking. CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround. 16:59:28 s/is a/is an/ 16:59:39 patch (thinking....) 16:59:41 sgallagh: burn that bridge when we get to it! 17:00:02 adamw: My favorite mixed metaphor! 17:00:25 I read 'burn that village' and wasn't able to get it... 17:00:37 sgallagh: it's the verbal version of how cortez treated ships... it drives us forward :p 17:01:06 sgallagh: it's no mixed metaphor, it's a QA SOP 17:01:22 danofsatx: is the patch coming, or should we vote? 17:01:23 ^ that :) 17:01:43 vote, my brain ain't working 17:02:06 ack 17:02:11 roshi: My second favorite is "We don't want any loose cannons rocking the boat." 17:02:37 People in glass houses sink ships, you know 17:02:52 that's a good one, hadn't heard it sgallagh 17:02:57 acks?nacks? 17:03:30 eh, patch 17:03:41 patch: "A simple workaround exists for the bug, so it's not considered severe enough to block Beta. The CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround." 17:03:47 ack 17:03:48 proposed #agreed - 1071356 - RejectedBlocker - There is an easy to apply workaround for this bug so it's not considered blocking. CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround. 17:03:53 nvm 17:03:56 ack 17:03:57 * adamw acks anything 17:03:59 ack 17:04:21 proposed #agreed - 1071356 - RejectedBlocker - A simple workaround exists for the bug, so it's not considered severe enough to block Beta. The CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround. 17:04:26 #agreed - 1071356 - RejectedBlocker - A simple workaround exists for the bug, so it's not considered severe enough to block Beta. The CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround. 17:04:30 rather 17:04:33 why did Bill the Cat suddenly come to mind? 17:04:48 there's a cat named Bill? 17:04:49 #topic (1155352) Fedora 21 Beta: Roles do not report firewall status via rolectl 17:04:52 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155352 17:04:55 #info Proposed Blocker, rolekit, NEW 17:05:01 we had a cat named dog once 17:05:19 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfVRuIaX1eQrTUtTzpWqSyiAGmaX-Zi3-vE2WmtqZisLIDS_4hzbz7Xw 17:05:38 lol 17:05:55 roshi: I called a special vote of the Server WG. 17:06:07 We agreed to strike the violating criteria for F21. 17:06:17 if it has not been implemented, is it reasonable to have it as a blocker? 17:06:26 I have to say I have no idea what rolectl is 17:06:43 kparal: It's the CLI for rolekit 17:06:43 me either 17:06:52 * jsmith knows what it is! 17:06:57 Which is the service implementing Server Roles for Fedora Server 17:07:29 that didn't enlighten me much :) 17:07:53 but I can google for that, no problem 17:08:03 * adamw wishes we'd just not put the criterion in in the first place if it wasn't going to get done, but... 17:08:03 kparal: 'rolectl deploy --settingsfile=settings.json domaincontroller' will give you a FreeIPA Domain Controller 17:08:08 (For example) 17:08:30 sgallagh: where's the record of said special meeting, so we can link to it here? 17:08:45 adamw: Look at server@ 17:08:50 Just a sec 17:09:00 (I also CCed you directly) 17:09:05 it was a special vote, not a special meeting. 17:09:21 (If I read that right) 17:09:26 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2014-October/001520.html 17:09:36 adamw: ^^ 17:09:45 thanks 17:10:04 so, no vote since they don't want that criteria anymore? 17:10:13 Well, -1 blocker 17:10:26 "Does not violate any Beta criteria" 17:10:34 I figure we'd un-nominate it and be done 17:10:51 Either way 17:11:39 proposed #agreed - 1155352 - RejectedBlocker - Per ServerWG vote [0], this doesn't violate any criteria. \n [0] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2014-October/001520.html 17:11:40 i can withdraw the nomination 17:11:43 no-one needs to vote on that 17:12:00 wfm - moving on then 17:12:12 #topic (1155301) SELinux denies certmonger dbus requests during FreeIPA deployment with rolekit 17:12:14 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155301 17:12:17 #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW 17:12:21 +1 17:13:28 I spoke with mgrepl today, he assigned lvrabec to address this. I haven't seen a build yet, so I don't know if this is likely to make tonight's compose. 17:13:52 Do we still have a chance of tomorrow night's compose being the Beta, or is that too close to the Go/No-Go? 17:14:15 there's a *chance* but would require some heroic testing of the next compose 17:14:34 heroic testing is our favorite activity 17:14:55 * roshi wonders if there's any money left in the Fedora Bourbon fund for the occassion... 17:15:49 How much could an selinux-policy update really break? 17:15:59 roshi: I think I have a drink ticket left over from Flock, if that helps... 17:16:01 (tongue firmly in cheek) 17:16:08 sgallagh: :-) 17:16:19 er 17:16:19 we'd have to compose today. 17:16:19 go/no-go is tomorrow. 17:16:26 yeah 17:16:31 i have a mail from mgrepl which seems to indicate that the current selinux-policy build should fix this 17:16:33 but it's not very clear 17:16:35 * dustymabe returns 17:16:46 if a compose landed today, we could *theoretically* get the testing done for it 17:16:50 > oh, I see :) will do! today's the last chance to do RC1 if we have any 17:16:50 > hope of signing off on Beta tomorrow, so if you could have an 17:16:50 > selinux-policy build with the fixes for the blockers when I wake up 17:16:50 > that'd be really good :) thanks! 17:16:52 The latest policy build would fine. 17:16:52 selinux-policy-3.13.1-88.fc21 17:16:52 if the cloud images show up this time 17:16:54 17:18:54 i wasn't very clear when I said 'the blockers', though, so he may not have realized about the freeipa blocker bugs 17:18:54 sgallagh: did you get to testing it yet? 17:18:54 anyway, +1, i really don't think this is fudge-able. server is part of f21, this is the basic point of server, this is the f21 beta release, it should work. 17:19:09 adamw: I've been in this meeting and FESCo since that comment 17:19:10 So no 17:19:25 me either 17:19:28 +1 17:19:30 But yeah, +1 blocker 17:19:31 lemme fire up an install now 17:19:37 (and testing it is first on my list after this) 17:19:46 I'll combine it with the bind update testing in about an hour 17:22:12 proposed #agreed - 1155301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." 17:22:36 Ack 17:22:51 ack 17:22:51 ack 17:22:55 ack 17:23:36 * sgallagh has to focus on FESCo for a little while 17:23:45 ping me if there are direct questions I need to answer, please 17:23:46 #agreed - 1155301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." 17:23:51 will do sgallagh 17:24:06 #topic (1155329) SELinux is preventing named from create access on the file DNS_25 (during FreeIPA deployment via rolekit, F21 Beta TC4) 17:24:09 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155329 17:24:11 #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW 17:24:15 +1 17:24:44 +1 17:25:15 +1 17:26:42 proposed #agreed - 1155329 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." 17:27:17 it's a bit hard to be sure if these others actually break deployment 17:27:23 since you can't test with enforcing because you hit the other one first 17:27:28 yeah 17:27:29 but probably safest to accept for now 17:27:30 +1 17:27:31 * kparal was about to say the same thing 17:27:42 +1 17:27:43 adamw: yeah. i imagine more information will come once the other one gets fixed? 17:28:26 yeah, we can re-vote if one of the others turns out to be trivial or something 17:28:48 wfm 17:28:57 ack/nack/patch? 17:29:38 ack 17:29:45 ack 17:29:50 thpppt 17:30:08 dumb question: whats the difference between +1 and ack in this context ? 17:30:08 #agreed - 1155329 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried." 17:30:09 ack 17:30:24 dustymabe: we vote on whether the bug is a blocker 17:30:33 dustymabe: then we ack or nack or patch the 'agree' that explains why 17:30:40 ahh. got it 17:30:43 adamw: thanks 17:30:52 dustymabe: the vote is set once it's been taken, but sometimes there's a mistake in the text or someone has an improvement or whatever 17:31:03 that's it for proposed blockers 17:31:27 onto the FEs, unless there's compelling reason to review accepted blockers first 17:33:00 gotta run. have fun. 17:33:05 later danofsatx 17:33:09 onto FEs then 17:33:17 #topic (1155026) Missing addon results in a traceback when %addon header options are specified 17:33:20 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155026 17:33:22 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST 17:33:24 i thought i nominated three selinux freeipas? 17:33:53 must not have been pulled in by blocker bugs 17:34:00 * adamw checks 17:34:17 oh 17:34:25 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155304 got closed as a dupe of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155301 17:34:36 which seems a bit odd, but i guess mgrepl knows what he's doing 17:34:58 so we good to move to FE? 17:35:14 sure 17:36:44 * roshi isn't sure if this is worth breaking freeze for 17:37:06 seems to only affect kickstarts with the %addon in it 17:37:08 roshi: did we vote on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104682 ? 17:37:56 not that I recall 17:38:02 adamw: I know we did last time. I don't know about today 17:38:13 last time we decided to leave it until we got more information 17:38:16 not today I don't thinkg 17:38:34 well, we got extra info 17:38:43 to me it sounds like -1 blocker since it seems to require an unusual machine config 17:39:32 same here 17:40:10 -1 17:40:17 roshi: can you change #topic ? 17:40:23 yeah 17:40:25 sounds good to me 17:40:27 -1 17:40:53 #topic (1104682) DomU boot failure: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [systemd-udevd:161] 17:41:54 proposed #agreed - 1104682 - RejectedBlocker - This bug is predicated on having a less than common machine config and isn't considered serious enough in light of that to be considered a blocker. 17:42:40 ack 17:42:46 ack 17:42:55 * dustymabe pretends that he knows what he is doing 17:42:56 #agreed - 1104682 - RejectedBlocker - This bug is predicated on having a less than common machine config and isn't considered serious enough in light of that to be considered a blocker. 17:43:09 then you know what you're doing, dustymabe 17:43:11 :p 17:43:24 #topic (1155026) Missing addon results in a traceback when %addon header options are specified 17:43:31 ok, back to the FE 17:44:16 votes? 17:46:22 * adamw finds the url 17:46:32 dustymabe: that's what the rest of us are doing too ;) 17:46:40 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155026 17:46:48 ok so in for FE we are voting if we are going to allow a change to be made? 17:47:13 yeah 17:47:19 i just searched google.. found this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process 17:47:21 is it worth breaking the freeze to get this fix in 17:47:29 got it. that's what I thought 17:47:31 that's the doc you want :) 17:48:25 dustymabe: that's what we're working off, yup :) 17:48:31 more or less we evaluate the risk of making the change. and determine if risk is worth the reward 17:48:41 yup 17:49:09 i'm not clear on whether this is affecting our *default* configuration 17:49:09 I don't know that this bug is worth breaking freeze for 17:49:24 but it doesn't seem like anyone's complained that they got locked out of their install or anything... 17:49:32 it struck me as only kickstarts with %addon in it 17:49:39 i'd be -1-repropose-with-details or punt, i guess 17:49:52 -1 and repropose wfm 17:49:59 agreed 17:50:02 -1 17:50:03 c2 seems like describing a default install 17:50:27 after the kickstart install, is how I read it 17:50:40 yeah, that might be right 17:51:10 yeah, i read it as "when you hit this bug, this is what happens" 17:51:18 but it still didn't quite explain when you do actually hit the bug 17:51:33 ok 17:51:51 proposed #agreed - 1155026 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug doesn't seem to be hit enough to justify breaking freeze for. If it's more common than we know, please repropose with more information. 17:52:21 maybe "more common than just for kickstart installations with %addon specified"? 17:52:30 ack either way 17:52:33 yeah, that's better 17:52:55 #agreed - 1155026 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug doesn't seem to be hit enough to justify breaking freeze for. If it's more common than just for kickstart installations with %addon specified, please repropose with more information. 17:53:12 * roshi counted kparals patch as an ack for the patched version 17:53:22 ack 17:53:29 #topic (1145122) Provide more debug output on errors 17:53:29 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145122 17:53:29 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, initial-setup, POST 17:54:12 pwhalen: did you get around to testing this? 17:55:42 roshi, yes. It ran okay on both the KDE and minimal images 17:56:22 not sure if running it was all that was needed, if so.. ship it 17:56:28 :) 17:56:49 running OK was what i was concerned about' 17:57:06 that's what I thought was the reason 17:57:21 +1 (moar debugging information is always welcome) 17:57:42 i can be +1 to this, though i'd probably make an executive decision not to pull it in if we trry a hero RC1 today/tomorow somehow 17:57:47 but if we wind up slipping, sure 17:57:56 that works for me 17:58:11 adamw, that sounds good to me too 17:58:25 +1 17:59:17 sounds good 18:00:42 proposed #agreed - 1145122 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix would be greate to get pulled in. However, only if the Beta release slips so we have time to test it properly. 18:00:49 * roshi wasn't sure the best way to word that one 18:00:51 ack 18:00:58 s/greate/great 18:01:35 pwhalen: could you update the bug that you tested it and all was good from your pov? 18:01:57 ack 18:02:18 roshi, will do 18:02:20 #agreed - 1145122 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fix would be great to get pulled in. However, only if the Beta release slips so we have time to test it properly. 18:02:23 thanks 18:02:31 #topic (1149782) liveusb-creator creates non-booting Live USB 18:02:31 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149782 18:02:31 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, liveusb-creator, NEW 18:03:02 -1 on this one 18:03:10 luc works fine on the official releases 18:03:22 working on F21 is more of a non-issue and can be fixed with updates 18:03:47 maybe we can advice satellit to just dd the stick with zeroes first. I remember I had to do that a few times, before luc started to work. simple reformatting didn't help 18:03:56 but in most cases it seems to work 18:04:36 it seems luc on f21 has problems because of syslinux 6 18:04:37 I use gparted to rebuild the mbr to fix it also 18:04:49 but yeah, -1, it doesn't need to be fixed in the frozen set 18:06:05 seems to proble is dd makes formatting that is then incompatable with LUC 18:06:10 proposed #agreed - 1149782 - RejectedFreezeException - Liveusb-creator works fine on F20 and F19 and a fix to this on F21 can be supplied via updates, so no need to pull it into the frozen package set. 18:06:56 ack 18:08:42 ack 18:08:53 #agreed - 1149782 - RejectedFreezeException - Liveusb-creator works fine on F20 and F19 and a fix to this on F21 can be supplied via updates, so no need to pull it into the frozen package set. 18:09:04 #topic (1149610) CVE-2014-7272 sddm: several local privileges escalation issues 18:09:07 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149610 18:09:10 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, vulnerability, NEW 18:09:50 +1 18:10:53 +1 18:11:39 +1 18:11:58 proposed #agreed - 1149610 - AcceptedFreezeException - Please pull this fix into the next compose despite freeze. 18:12:17 ack 18:12:56 ack 18:13:11 ack 18:13:16 #agreed - 1149610 - AcceptedFreezeException - Please pull this fix into the next compose despite freeze. 18:14:09 as for checking on the accepted blockers - looks like we only have 2 NEW ones 18:14:44 the SELinux ones... 18:16:33 do we need to go over any others adamw ? 18:16:35 fedup-dracut and ntfs, too. 18:16:49 yeah 18:16:55 cmurf and dlehman have been working on ntfs 18:17:02 looks like they're getting somewhere 18:17:10 i know wwoods has been working on fedup-dracut, not sure of the eta 18:17:18 sgallagh is trying to get someone to fix the selinux issues 18:17:26 sgallagh: you have a fix for the named crasher already, right?> 18:17:50 looks like they're getting the attention they need though, which is good 18:20:44 yeah, my next step is to check in with dlehman and wwoods 18:21:55 so we can go ahead and end this meeting, from what I can tell 18:22:04 yeah, i think we're done here 18:22:12 #topic Open Floor 18:22:28 anybody have anything they want to bring up before I light this fuse? 18:22:34 I'm back ;) 18:22:35 roshi: nope. 18:22:46 anything for open floor danofsatx-lt ? 18:22:59 nope, I don't think so 18:23:01 * roshi sets the fuse 18:24:03 later guys! 18:24:10 later! 18:24:12 thanks for coming 18:24:15 #endmeeting