16:05:24 #startmeeting f18beta-blocker-review-3 16:05:24 Meeting started Wed Oct 10 16:05:24 2012 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:05:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:05:24 #meetingname f18beta-blocker-review-3 16:05:24 The meeting name has been set to 'f18beta-blocker-review-3' 16:05:28 #topic Roll Call 16:05:49 morning 16:06:21 * kparal waves 16:06:40 pschindl is waiting for his train home, he will come late 16:08:21 late? That's unacceptable! 16:08:42 jreznik_: perhaps around and ready for a qa meeting? 16:09:12 Viking-Ice is around I assume 16:10:01 Viking-Ice: ping ping 16:10:40 so... we have 3, maybe 4 people with akshayvyas ? 16:10:53 yeah 16:10:54 yeah, enough to get started 16:10:58 sorry half in half at Caused by: javax.naming.NameNotFoundException: [LDAP: error code 32 - No Such Object]; remaining name 16:11:07 * Viking-Ice in debug mode 16:11:18 clearly, what you need is more objects. 16:11:28 :)) 16:11:30 i'm helping! i'm helping! 16:12:11 #topic Introduction 16:12:20 Why are we here? 16:12:20 #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. 16:12:28 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:12:28 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:12:35 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:12:35 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:12:43 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:12:43 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:12:43 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:12:43 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Final_Release_Criteria 16:12:54 * kparal expected the answer to the meaning of life... 16:13:15 kparal: reviewing blocker bugs, what else did you think the meaning of life could be? 16:13:23 Up for review today are: 16:13:26 qa is the meaning of life. 16:13:29 #info 28 Proposed Blockers 16:13:29 #info 10 Accepted Blockers 16:13:29 #info 5 Proposed NTH 16:13:29 #info 8 Accepted NTH 16:13:33 tflink: ah, now I finally understand 16:13:56 Any objections to capping the time of this meeting @ 3 hours? 16:14:04 none 16:14:53 anything not finished today will be done tomorrow - same time, same place 16:15:02 ok here 16:15:06 28 proposed blockers? holy moley. 16:15:23 hence the suspicion that we won't get through everything in 3 hours 16:16:11 #info This meeting will be stopped at 3 hours - any remaining blocker bugs to review will be done tomorrow at a second gathering of reviewers 16:17:04 any objections to starting with the proposed blockers? 16:17:12 let's go 16:17:14 nope 16:17:26 #chair adamw kparal 16:17:26 Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink 16:17:30 #topic (847831) kickstart boot fails with %include file generated by %pre 16:17:30 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847831 16:17:30 #info Proposed Blocker, ASSIGNED 16:17:55 ah, this is the one I was supposed to try to reproduce 16:18:40 * tflink forgot to get to that :-/ 16:18:59 well now we at least know it's something to do with cobbler. orion thinks it'll affect cobbler deployments, which is obviously a concern 16:20:04 * jreznik is here, sorry for being late... 16:20:05 have we gotten any farther on figuring out what parts of ks are going to be supported for F18? 16:20:52 not really. 16:21:02 i wish anaconda folks would turn up more for these meetings... 16:21:44 the current criterion says the kickstart generated from default installation must work. as for ideal state for F18 Final, everything defined in kickstart should work correctly. it's hard to update anaconda afterwards (just updates.img, and doesn't have to work always) 16:22:01 but I don't think we have such criterion currently, do we? 16:22:04 * kparal checks 16:22:19 makes sense to support everything default installation supports 16:22:23 as i wrote in the bug, the general idea is we were going to review proposed kickstart blockers on a case-by-case basis and extend the criteria if we thought it necessary 16:22:34 since no-one seemed to really have a plan for what should be in the kickstart criteria 16:22:56 kparal: I don't read it quite that way - it says that ks should be able to replicate what's done in the interactive installer 16:23:34 I'd still like to figure out if it's just cobbler or all %include 16:23:40 see adam's comment 20, third paragrap 16:23:41 h 16:24:34 the idea of the current criterion is that you do a straight-through all-defaults interactive install, take the ks generated, feed it back into anaconda, and it should work. 16:24:36 ah, I forgot about that 16:24:50 that's all it covers. but the express idea was that we would extend the criteria based on 'case law' (proposed blockers). 16:24:50 because we haven't tested it, why don't we ask Orion to try it for us? 16:25:21 * kparal tries basic ks now 16:25:46 * Viking-Ice aha java code not like / in o= 16:25:48 given how this bug is described i doubt it would affect that test. there's no %include in %pre. 16:25:49 back 16:27:19 so we're pretty much in the same place we were last week? 16:27:33 yes 16:27:33 someone needs to poke at this and not forget to do so? 16:27:44 not that I would ever forget to do that ... 16:27:46 * kparal notes his inst.ks= argument was ignored, weird 16:27:59 we should give it to tflink, he never forgets stuff. 16:28:36 exactly :-D 16:28:45 * jreznik forgets stuff but can help to poke people :) 16:29:21 so punt for more testing? 16:29:44 yup 16:29:44 yes. I have just found out that inst.ks is completely ignored, at least in my attempt 16:29:46 yeah. 16:30:16 kparal: are you sure it was ignored, or is it just that it's not a completely interactive ks and you have to do some things manually still? 16:30:28 hmm 16:30:37 kparal: the installer-generated kickstart has always had partitioning commented out, so not fully interactive (currently in f18 it doesn't seem to write the partitioning stuff even commented-out) 16:30:39 erf 16:30:43 fully *unattended* 16:30:44 I'll work on that 16:31:00 it was unattended for F17 16:31:30 not until you uncommented the partitioning lines.. 16:31:34 proposed #agreed 847831 - This still needs more testing, will revisit when there is more understanding of what parts of kickstart are affected here 16:31:38 ack 16:31:41 ack 16:31:43 ack and I in anycase I think our criteria is good 16:31:48 ack 16:31:54 ack 16:31:57 #agreed 847831 - This still needs more testing, will revisit when there is more understanding of what parts of kickstart are affected here 16:32:03 let's also ask Orion to help us with generic ks testing 16:32:03 #topic (856362) KeyError: 'la-latin1' 16:32:03 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856362 16:32:03 #info Proposed Blocker, POST 16:32:19 kparal: that probably wouldn't hurt 16:32:47 this is preupgrade bug 16:32:47 still can't decide on this one as we still don't have the upgrade tool. 16:32:52 punt it again. 16:32:58 agreed 16:33:07 agreed 16:33:35 proposed #agreed 856362 - This is an upgrade issue and we still can't confirm whether or not the new tools is affected by it. Will revisit after we have a testable upgrade tool 16:33:35 ok 16:33:45 * tflink wonders whether preupgrade should be retired in F17 16:34:04 tflink: if it does not correctly upgrade -> yes, it should be 16:34:16 ack 16:34:20 I bet we're going to get plenty of reports of preupgrade not working otherwise 16:34:27 ack 16:34:41 tflink: actually, people already started complaining 16:35:04 #agreed 856362 - This is an upgrade issue and we still can't confirm whether or not the new tools is affected by it. Will revisit after we have a testable upgrade tool 16:35:35 has the documentation for upgrade been adjusted yet to say that preupgrade no longer works? 16:36:15 I bet no, I'll take an action on this 16:36:35 yeah, doesn't look like it has been updated 16:37:23 well, the docs are really meant to cover stable releases, so careful how you word it - preupgrade's still The Way for our current stable release. 16:37:57 brb 16:37:59 I still think that a warning that preupgrade won't work for F18 might be a good idea 16:38:27 sure, just make it clear 16:38:28 not sure there is a point in doing too much documentation before we actually have the tool 16:38:32 next bug! 16:38:34 preupgrade is suppose to work, we r in beta now 16:38:47 akshayvyas: preupgrade is retired tool 16:38:58 akshayvyas: upgrade is supposed to work by the time beta is released, yes. preupgrade as a tool is due to be retired 16:39:02 Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 865031] Black screen when booting on iMac12,2 (27" 2011 model) 16:39:09 oh ohk 16:39:19 are we sure this is only a preupgrade issue? 16:39:38 see c#28 16:40:52 tflink: going around the merry-go-round again, no it isn't, but that appears to be the only case we care about. 16:41:23 I think it is related to 858591 16:41:34 it will probably appear again with the new tool as well 16:41:42 but let's skip now 16:41:49 we don't really know 16:41:53 ok, works for me 16:42:32 any objections to skipping preupgrade bugs today? 16:42:41 +1 to that 16:42:55 yeah 16:42:59 +1 16:43:04 #topic (862006) NameError: global name 'size_func_kwargs' is not defined 16:43:04 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862006 16:43:04 #info Proposed Blocker, POST 16:44:13 did we get a resolution to the whole 'is LVM supported' question? 16:45:38 we could argue that LVM might not be supported, but then the option should be removed and it should not crash 16:45:41 er. it looks like we didn't really do anything about that. sigh. so much to do... 16:45:55 I'm starting an action list from the meeting 16:46:03 tflink: +1 16:46:15 I'm not volunteering to do it all, just trying to keep track of all the stuff that needs to get done 16:46:20 * jreznik is writing down action items on the paper where he should poke around 16:46:57 we didn't set a #action for this one last week 16:47:01 tflink: and as always, I'm here to help and it would be great to have such action item list... so could we use #action more in the meeting? 16:47:07 i poked #anaconda during the meeting but probably never got a reply and forgot about it 16:47:08 pschindl: welcome! 16:47:20 so yeah, we should track action items and set them. 16:47:30 any volunteers for this one? 16:47:44 or can we do generic action items? 16:48:04 i'll take it 16:48:04 * pschindl was delayed by our excelent czech railways 16:48:58 #action adamw to discuss with anaconda team whether LVM ought to be release blocking and make a proposal to the list (re 862006) 16:49:06 adamw: you beat me to it 16:49:14 i win the prize 16:49:22 yeah, the action item :) 16:49:22 lwn ought to be release blocking 16:49:26 anaconda does not decide that 16:49:38 adamw: wouldn't be better to collect everything we need from anaconda in one place? than just having separate action items? 16:50:03 Viking-Ice: i'd want to have their input, doesn't mean they decide anything. 16:50:05 it was the default partitioning layout and until all release that had it as such have gone EOL we can remove that criteria 16:50:18 proposed #agreed 862006 - We still need to figure out whether LVM is considered a release blocking 'filesystem' will revisit once that question is answered 16:50:30 ack 16:50:33 nack we just decide that here and now 16:50:37 jreznik: we can collect all of the action items after the meeting, I think 16:50:54 since meetbot makes a list @ the end of the minutes 16:50:56 yep, let's do that this way 16:51:10 well previous action items should be readded 16:51:23 I have those written down elsewhere 16:51:35 we can formalize them in open floor or just add them afterwards 16:51:46 ok, let's continue with review 16:52:09 we have 1 ack and 1 nak 16:52:55 ack 16:52:56 * tflink is waiting for more 16:53:01 ack 16:53:03 sorry, I didn't realized that... 16:53:28 ack 16:53:33 4 ack, 1 nak 16:53:36 we can just decide this ourself no need to run to anaconda or fesco or whom else 16:53:59 Viking-Ice: why can't dictate this, we have no position to do so 16:54:16 Viking-Ice: if engineers decide not to continue with LVM, it does not make sense for QA to have it in release criteria and test it 16:54:36 well, i think it's pretty clear there'll be LVM support in anaconda. 16:54:37 hum 16:54:39 i have an idea 16:54:41 of course the change should be blessed by fesco in this case, I assume 16:54:44 really who does it's up to us to make the criteria and I propose we agree that LVM is a a release blocker until all GA release that had it as an default have been EOL then we remove the criteria 16:54:55 how about this 16:55:02 change this line in Beta criteria: "Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 16:55:04 to this: 16:55:18 and we agree that the bug is a blocker 16:55:25 "Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using all offered filesystem types" 16:55:47 if anaconda doesn't want to support something, don't offer it, or hide it behind a parameter like it did for btrfs. 16:56:00 offered filesystems ought to work - as kparal said earlier, if it's available it really shouldn't fail. 16:56:06 I think that not supporting at least the removal of LVM for F18 is really bad form 16:56:07 agreed 16:56:20 adamw i agree 16:56:32 adamw: good idea 16:56:40 ok 16:56:49 tflink: wdyt? 16:56:50 -1 on adamw's proposal 16:56:54 aww. 16:57:00 but I seem to be outvoted 16:57:05 reasoning? 16:57:09 LVM + btrfs makes no sense anyway 16:57:16 LVM has been the default for how long? 16:57:24 since fedora core 3. 16:57:27 adamw: I think tflink wants to say LVM removal should be supported always 16:57:34 which makes sense as well 16:57:39 ah 16:57:48 kparal: no, not always but at least until the last fedora with LVM as default has gone EOL 16:57:49 so the 'offered types' would apply just to creating 16:57:57 Is LVM being considered a filesystem type? 16:58:05 I don't think so, no 16:58:05 well, we do actually need to split up creating/destroying/assigning mount points for another reason. 16:58:09 *creating and assigning 16:58:17 cmurf: i was considering it one, yeah. 16:58:30 we could say 'filesystem types and volume management systems', but meh. 16:58:38 I don't object to not supporting the creation of LVM for f18+ even though I use LVM a lot 16:58:52 in newui custom part, LVM is just an option in the filesystem list 16:59:05 I object to the installer not getting along with the default 'filesystem' from the previous release 16:59:06 tflink: well my point is if we decide we don't want to support it, it shouldn't be offered. 16:59:15 to be created, sure 16:59:17 tflink, as do I 16:59:17 adamw: I think it's a Device Type 16:59:48 it sounds like maybe we do need to do this outside the meeting 16:59:50 adamw, has a point there 16:59:50 this is taking a lot of time 17:00:00 works for me 17:00:14 #info discussion on LVM related criteria will be continued outside the meeting 17:00:22 tflink: i believe that split would be plausible, btw. anaconda can destroy a partition of a type it doesn't offer to create. 17:00:49 I think we can just agree on adamws proposal which should cover lvm 17:01:15 we could agree in principle that we're *at least* going to require creation of offered types to work, in which case we can take this as a blocker. 17:01:26 i guess that'd square the circle? it sounds like no-one really objected to that, or did you not like it tflink? 17:01:50 I'm fine with that, I think I was confusing bugs 17:01:58 okay, so 17:02:01 if it's offered, it should work 17:02:08 yup 17:02:16 * kparal nods 17:02:36 are we changing the criteria, then? 17:02:37 adamw: I don't think the blocker criteria at this point should bind the anaconda team to functionality outside the ui. If offered, it should work. If it doesn't work come final TC's then those options need to be removed if they are a hurt me button. 17:02:53 propose #agreed 862006 - we agreed in principle that the criteria should be adjusted to require creation of all offered filesystem types to work at beta, therefore as LVM is offered, this bug is accepted as a blocker 17:03:08 cmurf: i think by 'offered' we've been assuming 'offered in the UI' 17:03:09 ack 17:03:09 ack 17:03:11 ack 17:03:19 ack 17:03:20 adamw: i agree 17:03:21 that's another thing to clarify in the final wording 17:03:42 cmurf: so...er, sorry to be dense, do you have a problem with the plan or not? :) 17:03:59 i agree with the proposal 17:04:05 ack 17:04:36 yay 17:04:41 #agreed 862006 - we agreed in principle that the criteria should be adjusted to require creation of all offered filesystem types to work at beta, therefore as LVM is offered, this bug is accepted as a blocker 17:04:52 so that's a delayed and cryptic ack 17:05:09 #action propose revision to partitioning criterion such that all partition types offered in the UI should work 17:05:29 * tflink didn't know that there was a 'call for help' option in meetbot 17:05:45 anyhow, let's move on 17:05:53 #topic (862801) Anaconda hangs when 'Configuring installed system' 17:05:54 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862801 17:05:54 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 17:06:14 finally some easy bug 17:06:16 blocker +1 17:06:26 +1 17:06:29 +1 17:06:47 criterion? 17:07:11 "The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces"? 17:07:18 good one 17:07:27 it doesn't complete 17:07:32 usually on bare metal 17:07:54 proposed #agreed 862801 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces" 17:08:02 ack 17:08:03 ack 17:08:04 ack 17:08:11 #agreed 862801 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces" 17:08:22 #topic (860430) RFE: dual boot support in newui 17:08:22 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860430 17:08:23 #info Proposed Blocker, ON_QA 17:08:33 we might want to rephrase that criteria to be "fully complete" for the next release cycle 17:08:57 nack 17:09:04 * satellit_e it does work on power off reboot 17:09:09 +1 blocker -1 nth 17:09:19 Viking-Ice: nak for the last bug? 17:09:31 for the dual boot 17:10:02 nack = -1 blocker -1 nth 17:10:05 i am against blocker 17:10:06 -1 17:10:21 my +1 there was a mistake 17:10:31 +1 nth 17:11:15 well selecting the correct disk for bootloader installation is quite important I believe 17:11:19 reason: grub2 devs don't recommend the use of block lists; therefore a dependency on something not recommended should not cause blocking. 17:11:39 kparal: correct WHOLE disk yes 17:12:04 officially supporting dual booting in any shape or form is a mistake and doing so we are opening pandoras box 17:12:08 cmurf: I might be confused, I believed that's what the bug was about 17:12:26 * adamw on phone, sorry 17:12:28 kparal: almost certainly i'm confused 17:13:00 kparal: yeah this is about presenting UI for installing grub to a particular whole disk rather than assuming it goes on the disk containing /boot 17:13:35 that's at least +1 NTH to me 17:13:48 I think I'm OK with blocker on this as long as we limit it to 'should be able to choose which disk gets the bootloader' 17:13:48 yeah 17:14:08 tflink: +1 17:14:20 the problem with installing grub to the disk containing /boot is that it steps on a pre-existing bootloader, potentially 17:14:24 I'm not +1 blocker on the entirety of 'should be able to dual boot' 17:14:39 but what blocker criteria does stepping on a prior bootloader violate? 17:15:16 tflink: esp considering that grub2 can maintain the dual-bootability of the system 17:15:49 I'm fine +1 "should be able to choose which disk gets the bootloader" 17:15:53 I'm not sure of the full scope of this bug, but I'm +1 to tflink's proposal 17:16:12 my preference would be to have a "no bootloader" option in anaconda, rather than being compelled to choose some other disk. what if you don't have another disk? 17:16:29 isn't it true something lik 80% of the fedora installations are single disk installs? 17:16:44 i.e. there are no other drives present? 17:17:04 I don't see any alpha or beta criteria that back up my +1 blocker, though 17:17:35 tflink: right that's why i'm -1 blocker, +1 nth 17:17:58 if you have broken bios, you might need to select a different disk 17:18:00 well if it fails to select and correctly install the boot loader on hw with 2 or more disks then it should hit the standar criteria "The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces" 17:18:13 that would be a showstopper and might guarantee +1 blocker 17:18:24 * adamw back 17:18:41 kparal: I don't see how a 3rd party vendor's buggy BIOS commits a bug as blocker to bail out the vendor. 17:18:46 adamw: did you finish your research on how this could be a beta blocker? 17:18:46 kparal, given previous examples no not really ( some hw bugs we dismiss like the graphical cards ) 17:19:44 I'm definitely +1 NTH due to the current final criterion for dual-boot 17:20:31 i didn't unfortunately 17:20:41 what about " The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space, using the empty space and installing a bootloader but leaving the pre-existing partitions and data untouched" 17:20:45 the blocker scope of this is 'pick target disk', yeah, not 'allow to install to partition' 17:20:58 tflink: well final release criteria 10 expresses exactly what i've been saying for a while which is newui doesn't have an option to NOT install a bootloader 17:21:01 hmm, it wasn't entirely meant for this but it kinda works 17:21:16 it's too much of a stretch to include the bootloader as a partition 17:21:26 yeah, i think we're all agreed on that. 17:21:44 s/it's too much/it's not too much/ 17:21:52 the bootloader stage 2 (core.img) is in effect its own partition 17:22:17 at least on BIOS hardware 17:22:36 EFI even more so, no? 17:23:08 * jreznik thinks we should set max time constraint for a bug otherwise it's going to be loong meeting... 17:23:09 Ticket notification - f18betablocker: [Bug 865048] kickstarted install can't autopart disk 17:23:15 jreznik: we already did 17:23:21 tflink: no it's a file like any other kind of file, within the file system 17:23:23 nvm, I read that too quickly 17:23:30 that's an interesting idea, though 17:23:34 cmurf: i don't think you're helping to clarify anything here. 17:23:38 jreznik, wont help 17:23:43 tflink: for BIOS, it's either in the MBR gap, an implied partition; or it's in BIOS Boot on GPT disks, an explicit partition 17:23:45 the most time is getting ack from people 17:23:48 reading the bootloader as a 'partition' for the purposes of the criteria seems rather baroque. 17:24:07 so, we sound pretty much agreed on +1 NTH 17:24:08 and not what they were written for. 17:24:16 true 17:24:34 so we eitehr propose criteria changes or -1 blocker, saving it for final 17:24:35 i agreed last week to unpropose this if i couldn't come up with a criterion this week, so...i guess make it nth and go on 17:24:49 that's okay for me, it should get in anyways. 17:24:51 adamw: grub being shoved into the MBR gap *is* baroque 17:25:10 +1 nth 17:25:15 ok +1 nth 17:25:16 * kparal says let's do +1 nth and go on 17:26:21 still +1 nth 17:26:23 proposed #agreed 860430 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedNTH - While this does not clearly violate any F18 alpha or beta release criteria, it does hit the following F18 final release criteria and an early fix wouldn't be turned down "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean single-partition Windows installation and either install a bootloader which can boot into the Windows installation, or leave the Windows bootlo 17:26:30 that's too long, isn't it 17:26:34 yep 17:27:13 proposed #agreed 860430 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedNTH - While this does not clearly violate any F18 alpha or beta release criteria, it does hit the dual-boot release criterion for F18 final and a tested fix would be considered past freeze. 17:27:24 acceptedblocker (final) 17:27:43 proposed #agreed 860430 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedNTH (beta), AcceptedBlocker (final) - While this does not clearly violate any F18 alpha or beta release criteria, it does hit the dual-boot release criterion for F18 final and a tested fix would be considered past freeze. 17:27:44 yes, let's accept for final right away 17:28:04 ack 17:28:06 ack 17:28:08 "or leave the Windows bootloader untouched and working" #10 final release criteria is a problem for newui 17:28:09 ack 17:28:15 ack 17:28:25 ack 17:28:29 ack 17:28:36 #agreed 860430 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedNTH (beta), AcceptedBlocker (final) - While this does not clearly violate any F18 alpha or beta release criteria, it does hit the dual-boot release criterion for F18 final and a tested fix would be considered past freeze. 17:28:48 #topic (858591) anaconda setting invalid system locale xx.UTF-8 not xx_YY.UTF-8 17:28:51 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858591 17:28:54 #info Proposed Blocker, VERIFIED 17:30:07 this is causing mayhem throughout the system 17:30:18 various programs crash due to invalid locale 17:30:23 yeah, this is clearly +1 blocker now 17:30:31 the firstboot crash is the most obvious basis 17:30:49 +1 blocker 17:30:52 see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858591#c51 17:30:52 I wanted to repropose as blocker as well, but adamw beat me to it 17:30:53 +1 blocker 17:30:55 +1 blocker 17:31:04 +1 blocker 17:31:15 +1 17:31:58 so, "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphrase is 17:32:05 shortened, though 17:32:07 yup, the dreaded long one. 17:32:28 "yum update Failed to set locale, defaulting to C"i am getting this when i try to update 17:33:14 well it updates bt yum fails to set locale 17:33:37 proposed #agreed 858591 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion for a non-insignificant number of locales: "In most cases, a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account" 17:33:44 I think that's just short enough 17:33:55 yep 17:34:08 ack/nak/patch? 17:34:09 ack 17:34:11 ack 17:34:13 ack 17:34:15 ack 17:34:24 #agreed 858591 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion for a non-insignificant number of locales: "In most cases, a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode. The firstboot utility must be able to create a working user account" 17:34:36 thou that criteria should be moved to beta 17:34:46 as in the locale part 17:34:47 #topic (862784) error: rpmdb open failed 17:34:47 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862784 17:34:47 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 17:35:37 we didn't get around to a new partitioning proposal, did we? 17:36:56 well I kinda think it's should be in the beta criteria 17:37:31 default paritioning scheme for alpha the reuse that partition scheme to test in beta 17:37:41 s/the/then 17:38:03 no, not yet, this was what i was referring to earlier when i said we needed to split up the 'create, destroy and assign' wording 17:38:27 Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 860430] RFE: dual boot support in newui 17:38:38 i'm broadly in the 'only require re-use of /home at beta' camp 17:39:06 #action propose partitioning criterion rewording such that partitions other than /home are not required to be re-usable at beta 17:39:34 note that we can either change the action, and certainly don't have to accept the rewording 17:39:56 #undo 17:39:56 Removing item from minutes: 17:39:58 but I'm also +1 to 'only require /home reuse at beta' 17:40:05 #action adamw propose partitioning criterion rewording such that partitions other than /home are not required to be re-usable at beta 17:40:15 require re-use of /home is kinda and fresh install with upgrade and belongs with upgrade 17:40:16 +1 as well 17:40:17 if you want it, go for it :) 17:40:33 Viking-Ice: either way, it's beta 17:40:43 adamw: I think that #actions work w/o assigning it to someone 17:40:53 sure, but i wanted it assigned to me :) 17:40:55 however it seems like Cantrell prefers stricter requirements for alpha, with diminishing strictness by the time we get to final? 17:40:57 I'm just afraid custom partitioning will be a disaster, because it won't be available at Beta 17:41:05 adamw, I think we should support re-using the default partitioning scheme 17:41:13 at beta as well 17:41:34 either way, it sounds like a discussion for the list instead of here? 17:41:40 i think anaconda team considers re-use of any populated partition other than /home to be a bad idea and expressly not supported 17:41:51 're-using' empty partitions is more of a grey area 17:42:13 what about reusing with reformatting? 17:42:13 some people seem to want to pre-create partitions with their favourite tools 17:42:15 nope it's not so only /home camper I am now 17:42:37 adamw: and there will be much more of them, when they see custom partitioning in anaconda 17:42:57 kparal: yep 17:43:10 proposed #agreed 862784 - While this does potentially violate F18 beta release criteria, that was not the spirit in which they were written. Will revisit after discussion on test@ regarding rewording the partitioning release criteria. 17:43:13 at least reuse with reformat would be great 17:43:35 kparal: yep 17:43:43 kparal: yeah and Windows and Mac OS installers allow this without reformatting, so it's something a lot of users are used to expecting 17:43:59 anyway, ack to tim's proposal 17:44:08 ack 17:44:08 ack 17:44:13 yeah, we don't have a clear consensus so ack 17:44:17 ack 17:44:21 #agreed 862784 - While this does potentially violate F18 beta release criteria, that was not the spirit in which they were written. Will revisit after discussion on test@ regarding rewording the partitioning release criteria. 17:44:41 #topic (855560) F18 Live Alpha : nVidia GeForce 8600M GT, graphic driver (nouveau): very poor performance (vesa is fluid) 17:44:44 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855560 17:44:46 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 17:45:11 no movement since last week 17:46:01 unpropose as blocker unless there is more testing? 17:46:14 agree 17:46:35 yeah, this doesn't seem to be piling up reports and i haven't seen anyone mentioning it on list or forums 17:46:45 acj 17:46:49 mean ack 17:46:49 i'd say reject without prejudice 17:47:36 ok 17:47:42 -1 blocker +1 nth 17:48:03 proposed #agreed 855560 - RejectedBlocker - There seem to be no new reporters and the existing reporters aren't retesting. Therefore, we conclude that this isn't a big enough problem to accept as a blocker for F18 beta. 17:48:18 ack 17:48:21 ack 17:48:36 ack 17:48:41 #agreed 855560 - RejectedBlocker - There seem to be no new reporters and the existing reporters aren't retesting. Therefore, we conclude that this isn't a big enough problem to accept as a blocker for F18 beta. 17:48:50 #topic (745202) gnome-shell does not display correctly with NV3x adapters - multicolor corruption of panel, Shell-style menus and text [nvfx] 17:48:53 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 17:48:56 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 17:49:41 I tested this with NV43, and everything worked, but I understand it is a different chipset family :-) 17:50:50 great 17:51:00 how common is this hw 17:51:01 the fallback mode works, so that's a good thing? 17:51:27 I don't really want to read the previous 100 comments :) 17:51:34 isn't fallback supposed to die at some point? 17:51:41 it boils down to mesa 17:51:43 seems not yet 17:51:58 and if I can recall correctly 9.x was not supposed to be in final? 17:52:07 if NV3x doesn't work under Gnome Shell, but fallback mode kicks in, it seems OK to me 17:52:20 same for me 17:52:26 it would be nice if it went to llvmpipe instead but I don't think that's a blocker 17:52:49 tflink: or even better 17:52:50 not a blocker 17:52:55 -1 blocker 17:53:07 yeah, with the info we got, this seems clearly not a blocker 17:53:16 I get total darkness and we did no block that he gets fallback and consider himself lucky 17:53:24 the blacklist is the 'fix' for blocker status here, and the blacklist is still working. 17:53:28 can consider 17:53:44 Viking-Ice: this one was a blocker because it affects a whole generation of nvidia hardware, but as long as the blacklist's still working, we're fine. 17:54:10 proposed #agreed 745202 - RejectedBlocker - Affected systems still boot into fallback mode and the HW blacklist seems to still be appropriate with current versions of mesa 9.x. Since fallback mode still functions, this is rejected as a blocker for F18 beta 17:54:19 ack 17:54:22 ack 17:54:45 ack 17:55:14 #agreed 745202 - RejectedBlocker - Affected systems still boot into fallback mode and the HW blacklist seems to still be appropriate with current versions of mesa 9.x. Since fallback mode still functions, this is rejected as a blocker for F18 beta 17:55:24 #topic (844167) Error in PREIN scriptlet in rpm package libvirt-daemon-0.9.11.4-3.fc17.x86_64 17:55:27 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844167 17:55:29 #info Proposed Blocker, MODIFIED 17:56:08 oh yeah, this is an upgrade issu 17:56:10 god, i am going to shoot this bug so hard in the head. 17:56:28 anyhoo, we're still waiting on the new upgrade tool. 17:56:40 so still pending. 17:56:42 adamw: until it poops rainbows and vomits sparkles? 17:57:03 * tflink is going to undo the topic change and move on to the next bug 17:57:07 #undo 17:57:07 Removing item from minutes: 17:57:08 #undo 17:57:08 Removing item from minutes: 17:57:10 #undo 17:57:10 Removing item from minutes: 17:57:12 tflink: precisely 17:57:24 #topic (864204) AttributeError: 'YumConf' object has no attribute '_repos_persistdir' 17:57:27 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864204 17:57:30 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 17:58:19 ugh abrt 17:58:51 * tflink wants a stick for beating those who propose blockers w/o justification 17:59:16 also, he didn't say what image he booted. 17:59:22 we're QA, we have to come up with justification 17:59:23 I'm tempted to reject on the grounds that we have no idea what's going on here 17:59:23 which is important in this context 17:59:32 at least punt on that grounds. 17:59:42 I think this is beta tc2 17:59:43 i just tried booting the dvd and quickly switching to nearest mirror, it didn't crash 17:59:50 18.12 is tc2, yeah. 17:59:55 but i mean, dvd, netinst... 18:00:00 10 users are CCed 18:00:05 that means it happens often 18:00:08 bug 672588 reveals perhaps more the underlying problem 18:00:14 then either punt or reject 18:00:27 oh, the CC come from Blocks field 18:00:38 nvm 18:00:47 and clumens added some ccs 18:00:51 yep 18:00:57 presumably for people he thought could help diagnose the issue, not people who were affected by it 18:01:13 yes, they were not added by abrt 18:01:14 thoughts on punt vs reject? 18:01:16 so single-man issue 18:01:25 reject 18:01:28 ask him to reproduce if he can, otherwise reject 18:01:36 unless it happens for someone else as well 18:01:39 it sounds like anaconda is yacking in certain instances when it's not finding a mirror? 18:02:15 punt now, reject if we can't reproduce and nobody else stumbles upon it 18:02:17 I would ask "is this reproducible if so how" 18:02:27 be too fast :) 18:02:51 proposed #agreed 864204 - There is not enough information on the image used or exactly what went wrong here. Ask for more information from the reporter - if there is nothing new @ the next review meeting, this will be rejected as a blocker. 18:03:01 ack 18:03:02 ack 18:03:05 ack 18:03:09 #agreed 864204 - There is not enough information on the image used or exactly what went wrong here. Ask for more information from the reporter - if there is nothing new @ the next review meeting, this will be rejected as a blocker. 18:03:22 #topic (862971) ValueError: Cannot remove extended partition sda4. Logical partitions present. 18:03:25 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862971 18:03:28 #info Proposed Blocker, ON_QA 18:04:15 +1 blocker 18:04:19 +1 blocker 18:04:26 +1 18:04:27 happens often when reclaiming space 18:04:41 probably just for some partition configurations 18:04:49 i'm seeing variations on this; same cause but different crash reports 18:04:51 sounds like when you have extended partitions 18:05:11 this one is extended partitions, i have one filed for corrupt ext4 partition 18:05:31 proposed #agreed 862971 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion for systems using extended partitions: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: ... Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 18:05:34 in any case anaconda should be able to remove a partition, most likely; but certainly shouldn't crash if it can't. 18:05:37 ack 18:05:37 ack 18:05:55 ack 18:05:58 #agreed 862971 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion for systems using extended partitions: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: ... Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 18:06:04 #topic (863451) AttributeError: 'DeviceFormat' object has no attribute 'peStart' 18:06:07 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863451 18:06:09 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 18:06:57 seems he's able to reproduce it reliably 18:07:03 is this LVM? 18:07:09 no 18:07:33 you just let anaconda create the whole layout in the advanced view 18:07:35 I suppose 18:07:36 what the hell is partition template 18:07:43 he clicks on the blue "link" in manual partitioning to automatically partition, then goes to the UNKNOWN partisions section to nuke individual partitions 18:07:47 pv.size - pv.format.peStart? 18:07:55 i think this is in custom partitioning 18:07:56 this area is pretty flaky i've been getting a lot of crashes 18:07:56 cmurf: correct, I believe 18:08:03 where it shows existing disks as part of other OS installations 18:08:13 ones that don't seem to be part of another OS get shown under an 'UNKNOWN' group 18:08:22 and deleting the last entry in that 'UNKNOWN' group causes the crash. i think that's it. 18:08:38 so deleting should work, we have it in criteria 18:09:04 adamw: i think so and i think this is related to a bug i filed last night although the trace is totally different 18:09:05 should be reproducible 18:09:11 i'd be +1 blocker on that basis 18:09:31 +1 blocker 18:09:40 call of nature, brb 18:09:55 864771 may be a duplicate of this bug 18:10:23 blocker 18:10:34 I'd be interested in seeing what his setup looked like - it sounds like a VM in the logs 18:10:47 tflink: as it is in my case 18:11:24 vm " INFO kernel:[ 16.368907] EXT4-fs (vda1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null)" 18:11:29 yes, the system did have LVM, BTW 18:11:50 this is probably still a blocker, though 18:12:21 tflink: yes either criteria 10 subpart says even if it's an invalid partition that the installer shouldn't crash 18:12:22 we have three acks for blocker 18:13:11 ahh but if the release criteria do not support the logic of blocking, then acks are invalid ;-) 18:13:45 proposed #agreed 863451 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criteria for the removal of LVM partitions: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: ... Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 18:13:56 ack 18:13:58 ack 18:13:59 ack 18:14:05 ack 18:14:06 #agreed 863451 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criteria for the removal of LVM partitions: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: ... Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 18:14:19 tflink: if you want to kill two birds with one stone 864771 is likely the same bug 18:14:36 could a.) make it blocker b.) make a reference that it may be a dupe of 863451 18:15:07 we can cross that bridge once we get there, i think. it's coming up 18:15:09 or just note it as a possible dupe that has additional information 18:15:20 you can do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HcRl4wSk 18:15:45 cmurf, and yes we can and yes we will 18:16:01 #topic (863582) KeyError: 'payload' 18:16:01 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863582 18:16:01 #info Proposed Blocker, ON_QA 18:16:06 #undo 18:16:06 Removing item from minutes: 18:16:09 #undo 18:16:09 Removing item from minutes: 18:16:15 #undo 18:16:15 Removing item from minutes: 18:16:25 #agreed 863451 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criteria for the removal of LVM partitions: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: ... Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types" 18:16:33 #topic (863582) KeyError: 'payload' 18:16:33 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863582 18:16:34 #info Proposed Blocker, ON_QA 18:16:45 clum: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865066 18:16:46 meetbot doesn't accept spaces! 18:16:56 grr 18:17:15 yeah, I was mad about it, too :) 18:17:41 +1 blocker 18:18:02 +! 18:18:03 +1 18:18:06 i thought this had been fixed 18:18:07 +1 18:18:23 doesn't really matter, we can still accept it 18:18:28 we are not sure it has been fixed 18:18:39 +1 18:19:00 ok. although i was hitting this bug in alpha but i'm not in any of the betas. 18:19:01 proposed #agreed 863582 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data" 18:19:07 ack 18:19:22 ack 18:19:28 ack 18:19:32 #agreed 863582 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data" 18:19:44 #topic (853508) nfsiso source for stage2 does not work 18:19:44 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853508 18:19:44 #info Proposed Blocker, ASSIGNED 18:20:44 this should be a blocker according to current criteria 18:21:00 it should? 18:21:05 It must be possible to install by booting the installation kernel directly, including via PXE, and correctly specifying a remote source for the installer itself, using whichever protocols are required to work for package retrieval at the current phase (Alpha, Beta, Final). This must work if the remote source is not a complete repository but contains only the files necessary for the installer itself to run. 18:21:17 The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options 18:21:23 ack 18:21:29 and as adamw says, we always assumed NFS==NFSISO 18:22:12 this seems like a rather obscure area to block on 18:22:22 I don't see why obscure 18:22:26 according to the bug, nfs/nfs iso works 18:22:28 pxe works 18:22:30 NFS+PXE=?? 18:22:33 nfs iso doesn't work 18:22:39 according to anaconda team 18:22:42 it's just the combination of pxe+nfsiso that doesn't work, no? 18:22:47 no 18:22:49 nfs iso doesn't work at all 18:22:54 then +1 blocker 18:22:58 according to anaconda team it's not trivial to fix 18:23:11 the criterion says explicitly it must work with PXE 18:23:11 and they are of the opinion we should not block on it, we should only require either NFS or NFS ISO 18:23:28 so we should discuss criterion change 18:23:31 on the basis you can always do one or the other 18:23:36 the criterion does not actually state nfsiso. 18:23:47 we've always cited it when taking nfsiso blockers, but it really doesn't say that. 18:23:51 actually in my case, I need nfsiso and I can't do nfs 18:23:55 in our office 18:24:03 I have nowhere to explode the DVD tree 18:24:03 why can't you loop mount the ISO on the nfs server? 18:24:11 I don't have root access to it 18:24:14 ah, hm 18:24:17 that's an interesting case 18:24:36 we mirror fedora-alt, but that's it 18:24:47 and I create PXE with Branched boot items 18:25:02 but that's just my use case 18:25:23 blocker or not ? 18:25:28 I'm +1 blocker 18:25:31 i asked jlk to drop by 18:25:38 already here 18:25:38 i'm -1 blocker because the release requirements don't explicitly say NFS + PXE 18:25:38 he's the guy who was dealing with nfs iso being broken 18:25:54 cmurf: they do, read it once again please 18:25:55 cmurf: yes it does. 18:25:55 right, so this is a bit of a mess 18:26:10 it's broken only if you attempt to get stage2 from an iso mounted on an NFS share 18:26:16 cmurf: that's very clear, the question is whether we ought to require both nfs and nfsiso to work, or whether just one is enough. 18:26:31 so the work arounds are plentiful 18:26:36 jlk: so kparal cited a case where he does need nfsiso, nfs won't work 18:26:43 I can use http though 18:26:53 true 18:26:56 I just wanted to say nfs and nfsiso are not equivalent in all cases 18:26:57 in that situation, you can put a LiveOS/ folder in your nfsiso dir correct? 18:27:13 oh right, there's that workaround too 18:27:29 I haven't verified, but I believe if LiveOS/ exists in the nfsiso dir, dracut will use that and not attempt to move the mounts around 18:27:30 it works if you create a LiveOS/ folder and put squashfs.img in it, right jlk? 18:27:36 or just create the folder? 18:27:50 sorry, yes, you put squashfs.img in it too 18:27:57 actually that again requires me to have access somewhere where I won't get it 18:28:18 but if nfsiso is so difficult, I don't mind explicitly move it to Final 18:28:33 we had troubles with it also for F17 cycle 18:28:35 my instinct is either/or is okay for beta 18:28:49 yeah, that works for me 18:28:51 other votes? 18:29:08 I'm not sure we have enough people affected by this to justify blocking release for it, to be honest 18:29:11 adamw: nfs or nfsiso for Beta, nfs and nfsiso for Final? 18:29:11 but I could be wrong 18:29:22 kparal: yeah 18:29:29 you can point to a stage2 on http and still use nfsiso as the repo 18:29:31 adamw: I'm OK with that 18:29:33 or even more liberal, but at least that liberal 18:29:55 remote sourcing in general seems like an area where there's fifty zillion ways to do it, and as long as enough of them work... 18:29:58 One of my tickets went from "New" to "Post"... may a n00b ask what that means? no comment was added to the ticket. 18:30:11 digimer: for anaconda, POST means a patch has been submitted to the anaconda patches ml for discussion 18:30:26 oh, awesome. thanks adamw 18:30:31 so do we punt until criteria changes have gone through or reject pending those changes? 18:30:32 it then gets reviewed on the list, and if it's accepted, it'll get committed to git and the bug set to MODIFIED 18:30:42 then when there's an anaconda build that includes the patch, it'll go to ON_QA 18:30:55 if we're all agreed on the criterion idea we can reject 18:31:00 did we lose viking-ice? 18:31:10 but let's make sure the criteria gets changed after the meeting 18:31:16 adamw: ah, thank you 18:31:16 yeah, needs an action item 18:31:22 as a side note, I really want to hook up a git hook that will do that POST->MODIFIED shuffle for us on git push 18:31:24 * digimer is new to this. :) 18:32:01 can someone else take this #action? my todo list is huge 18:32:12 proposed #agreed - The nfs package source criterion should be modified such that _either_ nfs or nfsiso should work @ beta 18:32:21 ack 18:32:22 er 18:32:23 patch 18:32:25 ack 18:32:32 * kparal doesn't feel like creating 'any/all' criteria 18:32:36 proposed #agreed - The nfs package source criterion should be modified such that _either_ nfs or nfsiso should work @ beta, with that agreement, 853508 is rejected as a blocker 18:32:45 kparal: 'either/both' :) 18:33:04 ack 18:33:06 kparal: it's not so tricky for this case since we just have two specific methods to consider, not a fuzzy list of variable length. 18:33:08 um, I was purposely separating the criteria change and the blocker acceptance 18:33:13 tflink: oh, sorry 18:33:15 didn't realize 18:33:20 in that case ack 18:33:51 adamw: actually it requires to tweak " The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options " sentence 18:33:53 so, no volunteers for the nfs/nfsiso criterion change? 18:34:03 gimme an action 18:34:04 kparal: yeah, but the tweak isn't too hard 18:34:37 #action kparal to propose changing the NFS remote package source criterion to require _either_ nfs or nfsiso to work @ beta 18:35:02 * kparal would love to use mathematical parentheses in common language sentences 18:35:03 now that we're all discombobulated ... 18:35:17 proposed #agreed - The nfs package source criterion should be modified such that _either_ nfs or nfsiso should work @ beta 18:35:28 a rejectedblocker proposal will come next 18:35:40 adamw, I just went outside smoking while this was being discussed 18:35:43 ack/nak/patch? 18:35:47 I see one ack 18:35:52 Viking-Ice: you okay with the change? 18:35:53 ack 18:36:07 kparal, what's preventing you from using parentheses? :) 18:36:15 ack 18:36:16 * kparal loves the word "discombobulated" 18:36:16 ack 18:36:32 #agreed - The nfs package source criterion should be modified such that _either_ nfs or nfsiso should work @ beta 18:36:44 nanonyme: and && or || symbols, that would be nice :) 18:37:17 proposed #agreed 853508 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - Due to the accepted criterion change above (xx:36) and the fact that nfs does function as a remote package source, this is rejected as a blocker for F18 beta 18:37:41 accept for final? 18:37:45 ack 18:37:59 kparal: I'd say repropose once the criteria changes have gone through 18:38:05 ack 18:38:28 it sounds like this could be enough of a mess to drop nfsiso for f18, to be honest 18:38:31 but I could be wrong 18:38:46 to justify dropping, anyways 18:38:49 I just don't want to let it disappear from the list, so let's just repropose for final right away 18:38:59 ack 18:39:02 ack 18:39:03 kparal: go for it :) 18:39:13 #agreed 853508 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - Due to the accepted criterion change above (xx:36) and the fact that nfs does function as a remote package source, this is rejected as a blocker for F18 beta 18:39:15 kparal: i'll re-propose for final when i do the bug note 18:39:29 #topic (863348) ValueError: Cannot remove non-leaf device 'vda2' 18:39:29 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863348 18:39:29 #info Proposed Blocker, POST 18:40:36 "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data" 18:40:57 this is clear +1 blocker, IMO 18:41:03 yup 18:41:09 +1 blocker 18:41:10 yeah, +1 blocker 18:41:13 +1 18:41:38 proposed #agreed 863348 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: " The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data" 18:41:45 ack 18:41:53 ack 18:42:59 ack/nak/patch? 18:43:04 ack 18:43:06 thanks 18:43:09 #agreed 863348 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data" 18:43:15 #topic (864771) KeyError: PartitionDevice instance (0x7f0f28b016d0) 18:43:15 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864771 18:43:15 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 18:44:40 I wonder why it's trying to grow a partition 18:45:04 *shrug* 18:45:18 either way, I think this is OK as a blocker 18:45:27 at a minimum, it would be nice if it didn't crash 18:45:35 yup 18:46:02 * adamw reads 18:46:24 i think to be blocker the messag is "it must not crash" even if the partition can't be removed, although i can't think of a reason why even a corrupt file system would inhibit removal of a partition 18:46:51 cmurf: can you reproduce this each time just by trying to delete the invalidly-formatted partition? 18:47:14 adamw: yes 18:47:24 ok, then yeah, +1 blocker on the grounds you cited 18:47:25 proposed #agreed 864771 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types ... Rejecting obviously invalid operations without crashing" 18:47:31 ack 18:47:38 ack 18:47:39 ack 18:47:51 #agreed 864771 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion: "The installer's custom partitioning mode must be capable of the following: Creating, destroying and assigning mount points to partitions of any specified size using most commonly-used filesystem types ... Rejecting obviously invalid operations without crashing" 18:48:05 * adamw notes we have 13 minutes left 18:48:30 how close do we want to cut it? 18:48:39 one more bug 18:48:42 ? 18:48:55 we have 10 proposed blockers left 18:49:04 works for me 18:49:09 #topic (863886) anaconda does not install firstboot 18:49:09 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863886 18:49:09 #info Proposed Blocker, MODIFIED 18:49:13 today we are approaching light speed in blocker review 18:49:25 hey, we can get two more. cos this is obvious +1. 18:49:40 try and install KDE from the DVD, get no firstboot, blocker. 18:49:48 yep, +1 18:50:03 +1 18:50:06 +1 18:50:10 +1 18:51:05 proposed #agreed 863886 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mod 18:51:11 shortening 18:51:16 ack in advance 18:51:33 ack 18:51:34 proposed #agreed 863886 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "In most cases, a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." 18:51:49 ack 18:51:50 more ack/nak/patch? 18:51:53 ack 18:51:55 ack 18:51:55 #agreed 863886 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "In most cases, a system installed according to any of the above criteria must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." 18:52:01 want more ack? I can ack more 18:52:18 close it for today? 18:52:34 sorry, /me is on fedora board mtg right now... 18:52:37 pretty successful run I think 18:52:47 one more 18:52:51 let's do one more! 18:53:09 is that an addiction? 18:53:15 kparal: http://blogs.mcall.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fe353ef0133edb5de38970b-800wi 18:53:18 ACK! 18:53:25 sounds like fear of withdrawal 18:53:38 tflink: nice, that looks like me after a long meeting :) 18:53:38 i can quit any time i want to, man 18:53:44 ahaha 18:53:55 I'm fine either way 18:53:55 that thing needs coffee stat! 18:54:04 or apprehension for what's coming instead 18:54:19 * tflink wants one of these: http://www.etsy.com/listing/93860534/bloom-county-bill-the-cat-and-opus-1991 18:54:19 let's get that one more then close ( 3 hour mark ) 18:55:15 #topic (864058) anaconda main menu not visible in F18 Beta TC2 KDE Live 18:55:15 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864058 18:55:16 #info Proposed Blocker, NEW 18:55:59 so you can't install from kde live post alpha tc5? 18:56:53 nice blocker 18:57:13 how did we release alpha w/ non working install from KDE live? 18:57:19 i was just about to ask this 18:57:34 eh? i don't think this affected alpha. 18:57:37 i'm pretty sure i tested it. 18:58:03 "It was visible in Alpha TC5" doesn't mean 'the bug was present', it means 'anaconda was visible' :) 18:58:18 and "I was unable to start anaconda in Alpha TC6" doesn't mean the bug was present 18:58:21 this is also tc not rc 18:58:22 i'm reading "the last visible was Alpha TC6" 18:58:32 satellit_e: can you elaborate on your comment - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864058#c11 18:58:35 i have the alpha kde live here, i'll check. 18:58:37 jan sedlak forgot to test Alpha RCs 18:58:40 anyhow, +1 blocker assuming it's as described. 18:58:48 the usual problem with alphanumeric ordering 18:58:50 yup 18:58:54 +1 blocker 18:58:57 which I'm complaining about for a long time 18:58:58 +1 18:59:06 blocker +1 18:59:11 were you able to install from kde live beta tc3? 18:59:17 ok 19:00:20 OK, alpha kde live was okay 19:00:36 i have it running here, anaconda launches and the main hub is visible. 19:00:44 i was sure i did test it, but thought i'd better check =) 19:00:50 proposed #agreed 864058 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion for the KDE spin: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods" 19:01:00 ack 19:01:03 ack 19:01:14 ack 19:01:16 #agreed 864058 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion for the KDE spin: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods" 19:01:27 ok, we're over 3 hours 19:02:07 #topic Open Floor 19:02:18 #info stopping at the 3 hour mark, will continue tomorrow 19:02:25 #undo 19:02:25 Removing item from minutes: 19:02:31 what about this LVM business? 19:02:47 #info stopping at the 3 hour mark, will continue on 2012-10-11 @ 16:00 UTC with the remainder of the bugs not covered today 19:03:38 cmurf: it's going on list. 19:03:45 gotcha 19:03:48 but we agreed in principle that LVM fail is blocker, basically. 19:04:00 anything else that should be brought up now? 19:04:05 i guess i'll spend the afternoon on a whole bunch of criteria tweaks. 19:04:14 that sounds like fun :-/ 19:05:03 if there's nothing else, I'm setting the fuse for [0,5] minutes 19:05:55 ah, schrodinger's fuse 19:06:08 eh? The fuse exists 19:06:18 but we don't know how long it is 19:06:23 whether you look in the box of explosives or not 19:06:51 here, look in the box :) 19:07:20 anyhow ... 19:07:33 * tflink will send out minutes and announcement for tomorrow's meeting shortly 19:07:38 Thanks for coming, everyone! 19:07:42 #endmeeting