<@adamwill:fedora.im>
15:59:35
!startmeeting F41-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:59:36
Meeting started at 2024-08-19 15:59:35 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:59:36
The Meeting name is 'F41-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
15:59:39
!topic Roll Call
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:09
hi folks, who's around for blocker review fun?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:01:13
!hi
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:01:15
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:15
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:16
Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:01:38
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:39
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:02:00
Hi, Fi
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:02:38
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:39
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:03:04
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:04
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:03:31
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:33
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:41
hi hi everyone
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:44
ok, impending boilerplate alert
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:05:30
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:31
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:39
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:42
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:44
!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.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:47
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:49
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:52
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:55
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:57
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:00
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:02
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:27
!info for Beta, we have 1 proposed blocker and 2 proposed freeze exception issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:40
!info for Final, we have 6 proposed blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:44
who wants to secretarialize?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:07:03
I can
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:08
thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:15
!info František Zatloukal will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:21
let's get started with;
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:07:25
(will process the stuff after the meeting, I am cooking in parallel)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:27
!topic Proposed Beta blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:52
!topic (2305291) GRUB 2.12 generated grub.cfg does not work with GRUB 2.06
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:55
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305291
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:57
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1618
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:00
!info Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:03
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+imsedgar, +frantisekz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:09
if this is confirmed to affect IoT I guess I'm +1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:08:23
(I didn't confirm it there)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:08:34
just theoretical note in the comment
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:08:58
should have formulated it better, confirmed on atomic desktops only, will probably affect IoT aswell
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:07
yeah, I kinda meant it'd be good to check. but I guess I'm OK with provisionally making it +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:13
we can unvote if it turns out not to affect IoT
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:10:34
+1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:10:46
+1 here, too
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:11:55
+1 one as in the ticket
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:56
proposed !agreed 2305291 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted on the assumption that it also affects IoT (our only release-blocking atomic build, at present). If so it's clearly a blocker per "The upgraded system must meet all release criteria", since the upgraded system doesn't boot.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:12:06
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:12:11
technically fcos is also an atomic variant
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:12:15
so we have two
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:18
oh, true
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:12:19
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:27
i guess this would affect fcos too?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:12:30
yes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:12:36
unless they're doing something magically different
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:59
proposed !agreed 2305291 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted on the assumption that it also affects IoT and CoreOS (our release-blocking atomic builds). If so it's clearly a blocker per "The upgraded system must meet all release criteria", since the upgraded system doesn't boot.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:03
well, I know they have a filter
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:13:08
so they might just be pinning at grub 2.06.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:13:18
:/
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:13:30
I'm kind of glad that nobody else does that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:13:36
we might not get things fixed otherwise
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:14:00
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:14:12
Ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:14:20
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:27
!agreed 2305291 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted on the assumption that it also affects IoT and CoreOS (our release-blocking atomic builds). If so it's clearly a blocker per "The upgraded system must meet all release criteria", since the upgraded system doesn't boot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:49
ok, since there's only a couple of them, let's move on to these before final blockers:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:55
!topic Proposed Beta freeze exception issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:00
!topic (2305707) Gnome Files, Terminal, Text Editor taking 20s to launch in Live instance
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:02
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305707
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:05
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1619
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:08
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:13
didn't test this myself, but as described, sure, +1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:15:30
+1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:15:32
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:15:48
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:15:56
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:14
proposed !agreed 2305707 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly annoying and cannot be fixed with an update (as it affects the live media)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:16:20
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:17:00
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:18:02
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:50
!agreed 2305707 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly annoying and cannot be fixed with an update (as it affects the live media)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:55
!topic (2299284) toolbox: "Error: failed to get the Podman version" in Live instance
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:58
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299284
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:01
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1612
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:03
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, podman, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:06
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+lruzicka)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:20:42
+1 - this will break a lot of usecases (not just for atomic desktops) if not fixed
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:21:17
My vote should not count. It is only a demonstration vote from the Flock talk.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:21:36
oof...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:21:37
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:21:41
+1 BetaFE
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:21:41
heh yeah, forgot about that lruzicka , sorry :D
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:21:49
+1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:22:06
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:17
one thing worth noting, this seems to be affecting live sessions only
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:21
at least per the discussion in the bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:32
i guess that makes it a natural FE candidate
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:41
so...+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:00
proposed !agreed 2299284 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is an annoying problem that cannot be fixed with an update, as it affects live sessions
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:23:16
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:23:34
Ack
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:23:43
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:23:54
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:24:02
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:24:22
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:22
!agreed 2299284 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is an annoying problem that cannot be fixed with an update, as it affects live sessions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:56
alrighty, let's move on to:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:59
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:32
!topic (2172868) [dnf5] dnf5 repoquery mixes up stdout and stderr
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:35
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172868
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:37
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1559
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:40
!info Proposed Blocker, dnf5, NEW
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:26:58
hmm, I don't think we have criteria for this? unless something blocking parses outputs?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:18
i think this is meant to be fixed, too - https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/1361
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:22
but yeah, not sure it's release blocking
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:59
though, well, the reproducer still reproduces for me
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:28:20
let's make it a FE? we can promote it to blocker if needed/desired later on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:39
oh, that fixed the `-q` bit but not the other bit
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:48
i'd just say reject it as a blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:52
too early to worry about final FEs at this point
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:28:59
mhm, okey dokey, works for me, -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:04
i'm -1, maybe with a note to say 'please re-propose if there's a criterion this breaks'
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:29:48
I'm +1 on the -1, that is to say I'm -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:49
that's -3, any other votes?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:56
!fire Neil Hanlon
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:29:56
-1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:30:07
:D
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:30:11
-1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:30:19
-1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:32
proposed !agreed 2172868 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is annoying, but we don't see anywhere it violates the release criteria. Please re-propose it with more details if there is a criteria violation we're missing
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:30:40
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:30:46
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:30:50
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:30:58
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:03
!agreed 2172868 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is annoying, but we don't see anywhere it violates the release criteria. Please re-propose it with more details if there is a criteria violation we're missing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:11
!topic (2303813) When running 6.10 or later kernel, gnome-disks is partly nonfunctional
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:14
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303813
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:17
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1616
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:19
!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-disk-utility, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:28
the last comment, if I'm reading it correctly, suggests there was a regression here but it should be fixed in 6.10.5 and later
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:33
i suggest we ask the reporter to re-test?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:32:50
that's my reading too
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:33:09
and 6.10.5 is stable so yeah
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:33:12
I haven't tested 6.10.5 yet, was waiting for it to go to stable. it's broken in 41 with the current rc3 kernel (at least for me)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:33:14
Yeah, I also understand this that way and also have a feeling like besides that there is no problem that we would not have had already.
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:34:22
there's an rc4 at kernel.org but it hasn't been built yet in koji (maybe jforbes is waiting for input from this meeting)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:29
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2532085
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:32
that's rc4
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:35
but only for f42
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:45
i don't see any f41 builds lately; I wonder if jforbes missed that branching happened
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:47
i'll ask him
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:32
Andre Robatino: can you test with a 6.10.5 or 6.10.6 kernel from fc40 and/or the rc4 kernel from fc42 and let us know?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:06
assuming the bug is 'real' and not yet fixed...eh, it feels kinda close as a blocker to me
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:36:29
i only have a 41 branched guest. i'll test with 6.10.5 when it's submitted for stable (hopefully today)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:55
Andre Robatino: it should be fine to install the rawhide kernel on it
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:37:07
or the F40 kernel :)
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:37:20
i'm not clear what the cause it and whether it's gnome-disk-utility, kernel, or something else. any ideas?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:37:21
For me it's FB +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:56
Andre Robatino: from the other person's comments it looks like a kernel issue to me, but not 100% sure
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:38:43
there was a mention of a dbus issue in the 6.10.5 bodhi update but i don't understand dbus so i don't know if that's relevant
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:38
Andre Robatino: it's not a dbus issue exactly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:40:47
it's just using dbus to examine the info the kernel is providing
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:40:48
and the person who mentioned it didn't say whether they had the gnome-disks issue and whether 6.10.5 fixed it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:23
anyway, easiest thing to do is just try the kernel builds i mentioned
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:31
do we have any other votes?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:42:06
what is the criterion?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:27
basic app functionality, I guess?
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:42:58
i gave the criteria in comment 4
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:34
so it's a subjective call whether this is basic functionality
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:43:40
Ok. One could argue what fields must be there in order to have basic functionality, but I will not stay in your way.
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:45:08
personally, i use gnome-disks often to check the disk status. with it broken i have to use smartctl
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:45:44
I could be whatever you want me to.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:45:56
I do not use Disks.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:03
yeah, i'm kinda meh on it
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:46:18
+1 then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:22
maybe a punt?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:46:43
yeah, and see if it is fixed.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:14
proposed !agreed 2303813 - punt (delay decision) - this seems like a borderline case, and may be fixed by newer kernels. For now we'll punt it for further testing with newer kernel builds
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:48:28
It is fixed in newer kernels
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:48:32
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:48:37
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:48:41
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:48:45
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:48:50
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:00
of course, we have an issue with new kernels - they break podman...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:04
but, eh, we'll work that out
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:49:08
@jforbes : will there be an rc4 F41 build soon?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:22
Andre Robatino: the problem is the podman thing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:27
!agreed 2303813 - punt (delay decision) - this seems like a borderline case, and may be fixed by newer kernels. For now we'll punt it for further testing with newer kernel builds
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:49:28
that tag does not seem to work
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:49:29
The thing that broke it was technically correct, but since it broke like 3 userpsace programs, it was reverted. I think I pulled it back in 6.10.5 for stable and it is in rc4, came in at some point
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:49:39
oh it does. matrix is weird
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:55
jforbes: thanks
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:50:02
I was waiting to see podman results from rc4, but I expect I will not actually build it for F41 since we are keeping it gatedin rawhide
<@robatino:fedora.im>
16:50:20
should the bug be assigned to kernel, then, instead of gnome-disk-utility?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:50:26
yeah, sounds like it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:25
i'll do it
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:52:02
should likely just be closed
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
16:52:59
The offending commit was reverted everywhere, it's just that F41 and rawhide can't get it because another issue is gating, but no more attention is being paid to the ata issue
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:06
nah, as it's a downstream issue it shouldn't be closed till we actually get a newer kernel int
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:09
nah, as it's a downstream issue it shouldn't be closed till we actually get a newer kernel in
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:41
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:48
!topic (2278845) gnome-initial-setup: Choosing avatar results in SetIconFile call failed for unknown reason
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:51
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278845
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:55
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1603
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:59
!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:02
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-1) (+lruzicka, -kparal)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:56:43
I will need to leave in 5 minutes, but I am +1 on this one, because the avatar thing invites you to try to change it when creating an account.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:57:39
+1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
16:57:55
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:58:04
yeah, it feels a bit minor but i guess +1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:58:29
+1, 1/3rd of stuff doesn't work seems like a basic funcionality
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:58:50
*does
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:59:00
+1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:59:06
+1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:59:43
+1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
16:59:59
+1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:00:13
I installed yesterday's iso. And it seems this bug is fixed already
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:33
proposed !agreed 2278845 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "the initial setup utility should withstand a basic functionality test"
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:00:58
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:01:00
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:01:21
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:01:21
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:46
!agreed 2278845 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "the initial setup utility should withstand a basic functionality test"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:58
!topic (2283978) Raspberry Pi 4 automatically suspends when idle, claims to support suspend, but can't be woken up
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:00
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283978
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:02
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1607
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:04
!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:06
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+kparal)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:03:56
+1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:04:58
+1
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:05:00
+1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:05:16
Oh dear, suspension sucks...
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:05:22
and I must leave, so I am also +1 for the Orca bug. Thanks.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:38
i worry that fixing this might be awkward
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:05:50
+1 on this bug.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:53
it's easier for pi OS because they only support pi. so they can maybe just unconditionally disable suspend
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:05
it's rather harder to implement 'disable it, but only on pi' for a general-purpose OS
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:36
i guess I can be +1 on this, but with the caveat that I suspect we may end up having to waive it as hard to fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:48
jforbes: any thoughts? is it feasible to just disable suspend for pis in the kernel, or something?
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:07:59
That's going to be difficult to solve in a meaningful way that won't leave us carrying a patch forever, but I will take a look and see where we are
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:08:04
thanks
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:09:36
It is worth noting that policy and mechanism are 2 different things, the kernel has no policy to auto suspend
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:00
the autosuspend thing is in GNOME
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:20
but again we have the same issue there - we can't really disable it universally (it's for EU compliance or something), and it's hard to disable it just for pi
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:12:22
Right, also people will get annoyed when their arm laptop doesn't suspend
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:34
hmm, we also don't really have a criterion here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:52
yeah, so we can't just disable it on all aarch64
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:51
I *guess* we could use "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common Issues"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:28
proposed !agreed 2283978 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common Issues". We note that fixing it may not be straightforward and it may have to be waived as hard to fix or documented and considered 'resolved' in that way
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:37
as that criterion is for beta, we kinda have to make this a beta blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:17:06
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:22
anyone else?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:18:45
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:18:52
Ack
<@jforbes:fedora.im>
17:18:57
I am guessing this will end up as "documented"
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:18:59
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:19:03
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:46
!agreed 2283978 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common Issues". We note that fixing it may not be straightforward and it may have to be waived as hard to fix or documented and considered 'resolved' in that way
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:19:57
would love to fix it, but dunno how practicable it is to do
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:01
!topic (2305763) Orca crashes on Fedora 41 Pre-beta due to a Python "AttributeError".
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:05
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305763
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:08
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1620
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:11
!info Proposed Blocker, orca, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:44
seems pretty +1 to me, but we don't have explicit accessibility criteria (which is an oversight, as it's in the PRD and tech spec)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:18
i'd propose we take this as a conditional violation of basically every release criterion for anyone who needs a screen reader
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:22:32
+1 BB
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:51
yeah, good point, i think it's reasonable to take this for beta
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:23:15
should we have a follow up for creating an accessibility criteria?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:23:22
+1 BB
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:28
Well, orca is a software shipped by default. It must work on the live iso.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:49
there is https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/785 already
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:07
geraldosimiao: unfortunately the criterion says "that can be launched from the menus" and you can't launch orca from the menus, that's not how it works
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:35
but i think we could easily stretch a point there. i kinda like taking it as a conditional violation of multiple other criteria better, though, because it makes the point that "this is just using the computer, if you need orca"
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:08
If it won't, and it main goal is to provide accessibility, so a user who depends on it can't solve the problem with an upgrade
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:26:12
having something carved out specifically for screen readers / a11y as a whole would be good, I think.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:17
So it is blockery
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:19
!info there is an ongoing ticket for adding explicit accessibility release criteria in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/785
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:33
Or?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:39
proposed !agreed 2305763 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a *Beta* (not Final) blocker as a conditional violation of all desktop-related criteria for GNOME for all people who need a screen reader
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:45
how's that?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:52
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:27:54
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:27:58
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:41
!agreed 2305763 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a Beta (not Final) blocker as a conditional violation of all desktop-related criteria for GNOME for all people who need a screen reader
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:48
!topic (2303624) Saving files not working in Google Chrome, Telegram, etc after updating xdg-desktop-portal-gnome to 47~beta-1.fc41 version
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:50
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303624
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:54
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1614
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:58
!info Proposed Blocker, xdg-desktop-portal-gnome, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:02
I think I fixed this...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:13
well, something like it, anyway
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:02
in nautilus-47~beta.1-2.fc41
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:30:12
ACK
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:16
i guess i'd propose punting this as it's a bit of a tricky case and if it's fixed we don't have to worry
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:24
any other thoughts?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:34:42
+1 punt
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:34:45
punting fine with me
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:35:06
+1 punt
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:35:23
re: orca: I proposed an update to 47-beta: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orca/pull-request/3
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:35:51
re: orca: I proposed an update to 47-beta: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orca/pull-request/3 as suggested in the bz
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:11
thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:39
proposed !agreed 2303624 - punt (delay decision) - we believe this may be fixed with the latest nautilus build, we will wait for input from the reporter before voting
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:36:54
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:37:02
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:12
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:59
!agreed 2303624 - punt (delay decision) - we believe this may be fixed with the latest nautilus build, we will wait for input from the reporter before voting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:03
OK, that's all the proposals
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:06
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:08
any other issues?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:19
František Zatloukal: just a note, be careful with the two that moved from Final to Beta in the voting
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:38:41
yep, going to pay attention, thanks
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:38:53
will probably handle it in an hour or so, after dinner
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:42:27
adamw: I got a pile of infra software PRs to resolve issues we discovered last cycle that I think you want fixed this cycle :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:42:43
I'd like to get those landed and in place before the freeze kicks in next week
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:23
great
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:27
what are they?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:43:56
also, we'll most probably have LLVM 19 as a FE, it's part of an accepted change (that it'll land post-freeze)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:43:56
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:43:56
including ideally mesa rebuild this time, to avoid the need to package compat spirv-llvm every release
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:36
i really wish we didn't have this schedule issue
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:43
okay, i guess we're done
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:48
thanks for coming, folks!
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:49:06
thank you for running adamw !
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:49:12
neil has already given cookies to adamwill during the F40 timeframe
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:49:25
Thanks again Adam!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:28
!endmeeting