14:01:50 <bcotton_> #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues 14:01:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 6 14:01:50 2022 UTC. 14:01:50 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 14:01:50 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton_. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 14:01:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:01:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:01:52 <bcotton_> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues 14:01:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:01:56 <bcotton_> #chair bcotton 14:01:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: bcotton bcotton_ 14:02:05 <bcotton_> #topic Purpose of this meeting 14:02:06 <bcotton_> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution. 14:02:08 <bcotton_> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help contributors focus on the most important issues. 14:02:09 <bcotton_> #link https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/prioritized_bugs/#_process_description 14:02:13 <bcotton_> #topic Roll Call 14:02:24 <bcotton_> who's here for some fun? 14:02:29 <bittin> .hello bittin 14:02:30 <zodbot> bittin: bittin 'Luna Jernberg' <droidbittin@gmail.com> 14:03:16 * bcotton_ pokes mattdm 14:03:59 <bcotton> oh, wow, it's just that the bridge is...slowwww. ~3 minute lag right now 14:05:35 <bcotton_> well i guess luna and I have all the power today 14:05:41 <bcotton_> mwahahahaha 14:06:08 <bcotton_> #topic Nominated bugs 14:06:10 <bcotton_> #info 5 nominated bugs 14:06:11 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871664&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%3F 14:06:16 <bcotton_> #topic flathub filtered repo seems missing from F35 install 14:06:17 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011274 14:06:22 <mattdm> I am here sorry 14:06:25 <mattdm> meeting went late 14:06:46 <bcotton_> welcome! 14:06:49 <bcotton_> just in time :-) 14:07:01 <bittin> having problems booting with Kernel 5.18-rc0 in Virtualbox in Rawhide, maybe should find out what exact is wrong and try to report it 14:08:29 <bcotton_> this feels like a pretty good candidate. we talked this up in the release announcement and it apparently...doesn't work? 14:09:45 <mattdm> I'm unsure about the prioritized bug process for this one. 14:10:16 <mattdm> It works for new installs, but needs manual intervention on upgrades, as I understand it. 14:10:17 <mattdm> Right? 14:10:37 <mattdm> It seems like this is something that should either be a priority for Workstation or not a priority for Workstation. 14:11:00 <bcotton_> that appears to be the latest state of it, yes 14:11:01 <mattdm> Am I making sense? 14:11:22 <bcotton_> are you saying "if Workstation WG doesn't think it's a priority, why should we?" 14:12:18 <bittin> what bug #? are we on (reported a bug myself) 14:12:33 <bcotton_> bittin: 2011274 14:12:57 <bittin> thx 14:13:28 <mattdm> Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's their feature.... 14:13:57 <bcotton_> mattdm: if you're saying what I think you're saying, that's a reasonable question to ask. I think there's some benefit to the project's credibility to have it work on upgrades, etc. otoh, it's not making things worse so much as less-good, if that distinction makes sense 14:14:48 <bcotton_> given that Workstation is our biggest audience, I'm inclined to say it needs to be a priority even if Workstation doesn't think so :-) 14:15:21 <bcotton_> but i won't fight strongly on it. if they say "we really don't care that much", i'd be inclined to drop it 14:15:51 <bittin> maybe, something to bring up on the Workstation Tuesday meetings? 14:15:56 <mattdm> I guess the crucial question then is: is _this_ the thing we want to spend our "tell Workstation to alter their priorities" arm-twisting power on this month? 14:16:43 <mattdm> Because we don't have a lot of such power, and the less we use it the more we have. 14:17:00 <mattdm> Yeah, I'm inclined to say "Look, we think this is a headline feature, so...." 14:17:20 <mattdm> rather than "We request that you prioritize this." 14:18:07 <bcotton_> makes sense 14:18:46 <mattdm> action mattdm or action bcotton_? 14:18:55 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed BZ 2011274 is softly rejected as a Prioritized Bug. We would like to see this fixed in short order, but don't want to mandate it 14:19:34 <mattdm> +1 14:19:44 <bcotton_> #agreed BZ 2011274 is softly rejected as a Prioritized Bug. We would like to see this fixed in short order, but don't want to mandate it 14:19:54 <bcotton_> #topic kexec-tools built with gcc 12 will fail kexec/kdump jumping to 2nd kernel with kexec_load interface 14:19:55 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2057391 14:21:17 <bcotton_> maybe I just don't know the kernel well enough, but I don't see why this is important 14:22:08 <mattdm> It seems pretty important to kernel developers 14:22:28 <mattdm> Let's not break things for Linus :) 14:22:40 <bittin> seems a patch was provided 29th March (not sure how much job its to implement and test) as i don't do kernel development 14:23:41 <mattdm> It seems like maybe this should be a FE rather than a prioritized bug? I think we need some more info from the nominator. 14:23:42 <mattdm> I mean, +1 to them for using the process though :) 14:23:56 <mattdm> Imma post a question in the bug 14:24:12 <bcotton_> it's also reported against rawhide (although it presumably would affect F36?) 14:24:33 <bcotton_> #action mattdm to ask for more info in the bug 14:24:59 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed BZ 2057391 will be deferred to the next meeting, as the impact and affected releases are unclear 14:26:49 <mattdm> info requested in bug 14:28:19 * bcotton_ will take silence as agreement 14:28:21 <bcotton_> #agreed BZ 2057391 will be deferred to the next meeting, as the impact and affected releases are unclear 14:28:29 <bcotton_> #topic online accounts: can't disable sync on items 14:28:31 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068470 14:29:09 <bcotton_> this one is also proposed as an F36 Final blocker, so we can either wait until next meeting or provisionally accept it in case it doesn't get accepted as a blocker (which I think it will) 14:29:33 <bittin> +1 FB 14:29:35 <mattdm> yes that was agreeing silence lol 14:29:35 <mattdm> I say provisionally accept if it's not a blocker. 14:29:37 <bcotton_> from a process standpoint, i'd favor just waiting until it's No Longer a Problem 14:29:52 <mattdm> sure. "defer" works. :) 14:30:16 <bcotton_> #agreed BZ 2068470 is deferred pending the outcome of the F36 Final blocker vote 14:30:28 <bcotton_> #topic kernels newer than 5.15.11-200.fc35 cause libgpiod to issue "Unknown error 517" 14:30:29 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060490 14:31:38 <mattdm> mmmm raspberry pi 14:32:14 <mattdm> oh look I seem to recognize the person who proposed this as prioritized 14:32:26 <mattdm> It is blocking the work of the students as UMass Lowell 14:32:59 <bittin> Don't know enough about Kernels or Raspberry Pi so i go +-0 and let you decide 14:33:35 * bcotton_ activates the jforbes signal 14:33:46 <jforbes> yes? 14:34:40 <bcotton_> hi jforbes, we're talking about RHBZ 2060490 14:34:48 <bcotton_> I saw you posted this link in the BZ: 14:34:48 <mattdm> The Raspberry Pi bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060490 14:34:49 <bcotton_> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/arm@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/D5A7YLVSPXXOXGTNETIULVD4VW25EK5U/ 14:35:00 <mattdm> one second brb 14:35:13 <bcotton_> but honestly, i'm having trouble keeping grokking the thread 14:35:55 <bcotton_> matthew says this blcoks some UMass Lowell work. do you think there's something we can do to advance this? 14:36:04 <bcotton_> matthew says this blcoks some UMass Lowell work. do you think there's something we can do to advance this? 14:36:07 <jforbes> Yes, I have no information outside of what is in the thread. I have assumed that the arm folks are working on 14:36:13 <bcotton_> whoops, why did i say that twice 14:36:35 <jforbes> Given the general workload, it is not something I will have any time to look at in the next week 14:36:42 <bcotton_> understood, thanks 14:36:54 <bcotton_> i'll check with the ARM folks and see if they are/can work on it 14:36:55 <jforbes> pbrobinson: do you have any update? 14:37:37 <mattdm> From the thread, the issue is the firmware? Or did I misunderstand that? 14:38:23 <mattdm> (and it sounds like the upstream firmware that might fix this also brings a bunch of regressions, which is ... frustrating.) 14:39:04 <jforbes> That is my understanding 14:40:28 <mattdm> Is it worthwhile to keep the kernel bug open at all? Or is there a different tracker for it? 14:40:39 <mattdm> (maybe pwhalen is around if peter isn't?) 14:42:33 <jforbes> I don't know how the arm folks feel about keeping the bug open, I have been following the thread on fedora-arm, but don't really look at old bugs, I look at updates and occasionally add issues to my upstream tracker with bugzilla 14:43:28 <jforbes> But the bug doesn't have any real relevant information that makes it more valuable than the thread that exists 14:44:40 <bcotton_> so it sounds like we probably shouldn't take it as a prioritized bug, but there's no real harm in leaving the BZ open among the many other kernel BZs? 14:45:26 <jforbes> That is my opinion on it, but that is my opinion on pretty much all kernel bugs. 14:45:36 <bcotton_> it's good to be consistent :-D 14:46:00 <mattdm> LOL yeahhhh. I think it's maybe something that would be best tracked as an IoT issue? 14:46:08 <jforbes> The prioritized process doesn't really work at all for kernel. 14:47:09 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed BZ 2060490 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug as it appears to largely be an issue in upstream firmware 14:48:09 <jforbes> It is being tracked on the arm list, I don't know that IoT has separate trackers 14:48:59 * bcotton_ adds the appropriate trackers to the BZ 14:49:10 <pwhalen> I've not been following the bug too closely, but it looks like a firmware issue and not completely in our control. We can discuss it at our next meeting 14:49:25 <bcotton_> #agreed BZ 2060490 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug as it appears to largely be an issue in upstream firmware 14:49:29 <bcotton_> thanks, pwhalen! 14:49:36 <bcotton_> and thanks jforbes for the input 14:49:46 <bcotton_> #topic GDM login screen does not display all users 14:49:48 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021839 14:49:53 <jforbes> NP 14:50:17 <mattdm> pwhalen++ 14:50:17 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for pwhalen changed to 3 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:50:33 <mattdm> jforbes++ 14:50:34 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for jforbes changed to 2 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:50:41 <bcotton_> bittin: i appreciate the enthusiasm, but i'll need to update the flags on the bugs anyway, so i'll comment with links to the minutes after the meeting 14:50:50 <bittin> alright 14:51:57 <mattdm> Hmmm. I don't see how this gdm thing can be any different 14:52:06 <bcotton_> this one seems annoying but there's a workaround and the upstream bug is untouched in the last 5 months 14:52:11 <bcotton_> #link https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdm/-/issues/743 14:52:32 <mattdm> If you have it configured with a remote identity provider with 20,000 identities, what is the right behavior? 14:52:43 <mattdm> I'm pretty sure it _can't_ be "list all 20,000 users with an icon" 14:52:56 <bcotton_> yeah, that would be ...suboptimal 14:52:58 <mattdm> And if not that, how does it know what to show? 14:52:59 * bittin agrees 14:53:22 <bittin> maybe the users, that has logged in to that machine before? 14:53:26 <bcotton_> there's something to be said for "remember the people who have logged in before" 14:53:30 <bcotton_> jinx! 14:53:38 <mattdm> And most identity providers won't show you a whole list _anyway_ unless you've authneticated (otherwise, that's a gigantic security/privacy hole" 14:53:40 <bittin> but thats more a feature request, if gdm does not do that 14:54:00 <bcotton_> but even then, there are some cases where that's not suitable either (e.g. a computer lab at a school) 14:54:51 <bcotton_> from the upstream bug: "Without selecting a session type "/var/lib/AccountsService/users/${NAME}" file will not be created" 14:54:53 <mattdm> Yeah. 14:55:27 <bcotton_> that seems like a bug (although again, it could be argued that fixing it makes things worse), but not something i'd prioritize 14:55:46 <mattdm> It's definitely odd behavior if it does create that if you create a session type. 14:55:49 <bcotton_> again "is this really what we want to spend our social capital with Workstation on?" except moreso imo 14:55:57 <bittin> guess its more up to the gdm developer, then the Fedora ones? 14:56:05 <mattdm> s/create/select/ 14:57:02 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed BZ 2021839 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. Although we recognize it's undesirable behavior in some circumastances, it's best left to upstream to decide if it's the behavior they want or if it should be modified in some way 14:57:32 <sobek81> fine with me 14:57:49 <pbrobinson> jforbes: this is the first time I've actually seen that bug report 14:57:49 <mattdm> we've got considerable GDM expertise. Like, halfline 14:57:55 <mattdm> (who I guess is not in this room) 14:57:59 <mattdm> +1 14:58:11 <bcotton_> #agreed BZ 2021839 is rejected as a Prioritized Bug. Although we recognize it's undesirable behavior in some circumastances, it's best left to upstream to decide if it's the behavior they want or if it should be modified in some way 14:58:47 <mattdm> but I'll also add, maybe: "If this is important for Fedora Workstation use cases, it may be useful to raise it with that team for discussion and design work" 14:58:57 <bcotton_> ack 14:59:00 <bcotton_> #topic Accepted bugs 14:59:02 <bcotton_> #info 2 accepted bugs 14:59:03 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871665&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%2B 14:59:05 <mattdm> I'll drop that in. 14:59:25 <bcotton_> we're out of time to go over these, but i'll continue to nudge on them as usual 14:59:33 <bcotton_> #topic Bugs fixed since last meeting 14:59:34 <bcotton_> #info This is to remind ourselves that the process works 14:59:36 <bcotton_> #info Flatpak using excessive space in /var/lib/flatpak/appstream 14:59:37 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032528 14:59:39 <bcotton_> yay team! 14:59:50 <mattdm> Should we go back to the RPI for a minute while peter is here? :) 15:00:14 <bcotton_> we're out of time, but i'll tag it with the arm and iot trackers 15:00:17 <bcotton_> #topic Next meeting 15:00:18 <bcotton_> #info We will meet again on 20 at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 15:00:24 <bcotton_> #undo 15:00:24 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton_ at 15:00:18 : We will meet again on 20 at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 15:00:34 <mattdm> pbrobinson: Is my interpretation that it's the firmware update correct? 15:00:35 <mattdm> thanks bcotton_ 15:00:36 <bcotton_> #info We will meet again on 20 April at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 15:00:45 <bcotton_> thanks everyone! 15:00:46 <bcotton_> #endmeeting