QA/Meetings/20120326

Attendees

• adamw (269)
• tflink (78)
• kparal (71)
• j_dulaney (57)
• bcl (30)
• twu (27)
• wwoods (21)
• brunowolff (15)
• pschindl (11)
• zodbot (6)
• rbergeron (4)
• mkrizek (4)
• jskladan (3)
• Cerlyn (3)
• maxamillion (3)
• satellit_laptop (1)
• mmaslano (1)
• rmarko (1)
• Viking-Ice (1)
• limburgher (1)
• nirik (1)
• Southern_Gentlem (1)

Agenda

• Previous meeting follow-up
• Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review
• 'Project' status
• Test Day report
• Upcoming QA events
• AutoQA update
• Open floor

Previous meeting follow-up

• adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks: this was done, and the event happened successfully

Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review

• RC1 is out and needs all Beta tests completed

Blocker review

• AGREED: rhbug:804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop
• AGREED: rhbug:806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options"
• AGREED: rhbug:806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info
• AGREED: we need to know if rhbug:806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting
• AGREED: rhbug:805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work
• AGREED: rhbug:806962 is a blocker per criterion "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", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d
• AGREED: rhbug:806867 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria"
• AGREED: rhbug:806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"
• AGREED: rhbug:806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"
• AGREED: rhbug:806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria)
• AGREED: rhbug:806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky)
• AGREED: rhbug:804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"

'Project' status

• See the on-list discussion
• Discussion was tabled till the following week due to lack of time

Test Day report

• Sugar Test Day on 03-22 - turnout was low, but the few who attended performed an impressive amount of testing

Upcoming QA events

• Kdump Test Day on 03-27
• GNOME Shell software rendering Test Day on 03-29
• Beta Go/No-Go scheduled for 03-28

AutoQA update

• No news!

Action items

• kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos)
• wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of

IRC Log

adamw	#startmeeting Fedora QA meeting	15:00
zodbot	Meeting started Mon Mar 26 15:00:06 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.	15:00
zodbot	Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.	15:00
adamw	#meetingname fedora-qa	15:00
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	15:00
adamw	#topic roll call	15:00
* pschindl is here		15:00
* j_dulaney cranks the bagpipes		15:00
* Cerlyn is here		15:00
* jskladan here		15:00
adamw	morning everyone, it's happy fun meeting time in happy fun qa land where the happy fun beta blockers make us all fun and happy	15:00
* twu twu is here		15:00
* kparal is all fun and happy		15:00
adamw	wait, these aren't aspirin.	15:00
j_dulaney	adamw: Are you on something?	15:00
* tflink is here		15:01
* mkrizek is here		15:01
Cerlyn	beta blockers can be avoided by eating more beta carotene	15:01
jskladan	adamw: My Little Blocker Friendship, you say...	15:02
* nirik is lurking		15:02
* maxamillion is here		15:02
adamw	#chair tflink kparal	15:02
zodbot	Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink	15:02
* brunowolff is here for 1/2 hour, then work meeting		15:03
adamw	wow, full house, huh	15:03
adamw	okey dokey, let's get rolling	15:03
adamw	#topic previous meeting follow-up	15:03
adamw	#info "adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks" - I did that, the page got lots of nice test cases, and much fun was had by all.	15:04
adamw	aaaaaand that's all i got for previous meeting follow up. anything I missed?	15:04
adamw	guess not	15:05
adamw	#topic Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review	15:05
adamw	so, we got RC1 done Friday and now we need to get all the testing done	15:05
adamw	#info Beta RC1 was built Friday afternoon and now needs testing	15:06
* maxamillion is downloading now		15:06
twu	yeah, we have done some tests in the day working	15:06
adamw	yup, i see that	15:07
twu	but still have some bugs	15:07
adamw	looks like quite a few bugs have been filed, so we should probably check those for blockers	15:07
brunowolff	I was able to do an install from a live image to a laptop. It went fine. (Though I had to tweak anaconda as the machine only has 512 MiB of memory.)	15:07
j_dulaney	I thought that limit was supposed to be removed	15:08
j_dulaney	It seems rather artificial	15:08
brunowolff	I think they are waiting for testing to see what the new limit should be.	15:08
brunowolff	It would be nice to lower it for final.	15:08
adamw	we need to test it	15:09
adamw	i think right after noloader landed, anaconda team did some tests and found they couldn't install with 512MB	15:09
adamw	but now it sounds like that's changed...	15:09
brunowolff	I didn't test a normal install, just the live install and that may make a difference.	15:10
j_dulaney	adamw: I never had trouble installing with 512MB	15:10
rmarko	same here	15:11
adamw	in F15 and F16 it was definitely unsafe.	15:11
j_dulaney	BTW, for the record, I am now running F17 as my primary OS	15:11
adamw	anyhoo	15:11
adamw	i'm just running through the bugs that have been reported so far and nominating some as blockers, then we can do some blocker review...	15:11
twu	now gnome3 can work fine on kvm :)	15:11
maxamillion	twu: +1	15:12
adamw	yeah, that's nice.	15:12
* twu have a question		15:12
j_dulaney	twu: It could for the past couple of months	15:12
j_dulaney	Since early in Alpha phase	15:12
tflink	j_dulaney: spice has had some issues as of late	15:12
twu	j_dulaney: yeah, it is	15:13
* satellit_laptop fine on Virtualbox also		15:13
j_dulaney	tflink: I haven't seen any	15:13
* j_dulaney will test post-meeting		15:13
twu	how can we see the changes made in anaconda just before we start testing	15:14
adamw	nearly there...	15:14
adamw	j_dulaney: until last week shell on KVM would crash regularly.	15:15
adamw	twu: how do you mean?	15:15
adamw	twu: something other than looking at the anaconda changelog?	15:15
twu	adamw: yes	15:15
j_dulaney	Do a diff?	15:16
j_dulaney	It's all Python	15:16
j_dulaney	adamw: Ah, I'd forgotten about that	15:16
adamw	look at the git log?	15:17
pschindl	for example: it would be nice, if we know about changes in installer parameters (like repo=... -> inst.repo)	15:17
twu	adamw: does it have something like "release note"?	15:17
* twu agree with pschindl		15:18
pschindl	they haven't changed their wiki. It is hard to test, when everything is different then in the previous version	15:18
adamw	whew, okay. sorry about that	15:19
tflink	pschindl: yeah, dracut is like that too	15:19
adamw	afaik, no, not really. all you get is the rpm changelog, git log, maybe the Bodhi update page.	15:19
tflink	bad tflink for not fixing it since that's been off since at least F16	15:19
* adamw gets the list of proposed blockers		15:19
adamw	okay, let's do our impromptu blocker review	15:20
mkrizek	last update of release notes was back in 2002 :) http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=blob;f=docs/anaconda-release-notes.txt;h=167411cb19791a6712bf48b76541ebf0d2eab710;hb=HEAD	15:20
adamw	looks like it could do with a bit of an update :P	15:21
adamw	for the record, i'm using http://ur1.ca/8t8f7 as the proposed blocker list, as the wikified one won't have caught up with my changes	15:21
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804514	15:22
tflink	adamw: it only gets updated ~ every hour	15:22
adamw	yes.	15:22
kparal	we can fix that, but I don't know who manages it	15:22
adamw	jlaska, as far as anyone does. i think.	15:22
kparal	zodbot is able to receive notifications in the matter of minutes	15:22
tflink	kparal: the wiki page or anaconda release notes?	15:22
kparal	wiki page	15:22
adamw	anyhow	15:22
tflink	kparal: that would be jlaska	15:23
adamw	this one sounds like Shell tries to run after a vesa install, and fails.	15:23
adamw	has anyone else tried that?	15:23
kparal	not me	15:23
adamw	so for me this is a blocker	15:24
adamw	criteria: alpha "The boot menu for all installation images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer and attempting to use the generic driver" combined with "Following on from the previous criterion, after firstboot is completed and on subsequent boots, a system installed according to any	15:24
adamw	of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to a working graphical environment without unintended user intervention. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphrase is supplied"	15:24
adamw	zoiks.	15:24
adamw	it'd be nice to have confirmation from one other tester though at least	15:24
tflink	I can give it a try	15:25
adamw	any votes on blockerinessA?	15:26
twu	when I leave the office, my 32 bit's still running, sorry for that :)	15:26
tflink	if it is what it sounds like, +1 blocker	15:26
brunowolff	Assuming this happens reliably, I am +1 blocker.	15:26
mkrizek	seems like a blocker to me too	15:26
kparal	+1 blocker	15:26
* brunowolff is off to another meeting		15:26
j_dulaney	+1 block	15:27
twu	+1 block	15:27
j_dulaney	er	15:27
Cerlyn	I installed with xdriver=vesa , but I don't recall seeing a menu choice to force it	15:27
adamw	propose #agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criteria about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop	15:27
adamw	Cerlyn: it's under 'advanced options' or something.	15:27
kparal	ack	15:27
j_dulaney	ack	15:28
tflink	ack	15:28
pschindl	ack	15:28
adamw	#agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop	15:28
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806749	15:29
adamw	this also seems like a straightforward blocker, and has a confirmation in the matrix (failures listed from hongqing and cra)	15:29
tflink	yeah, +1 blocker	15:30
adamw	looks to prevent NFS install and hence break alpha "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options "	15:30
kparal	interesting, I tried that right now	15:30
kparal	I didn't encounter that	15:30
j_dulaney	+1 blocker	15:30
kparal	I'm missing more information from hongqing. which compose? which arch?	15:30
bcl	kparal: I asked him to rerun with rd.debug and serial so all the details can be captured.	15:31
adamw	kparal: the matrix says x86_64, but don't know if he used DVD or netinst.	15:32
kparal	I used i386 netinst	15:32
tflink	adamw: for a NFS install, does it matter?	15:32
kparal	anyway, blocker +1	15:32
bcl	+1	15:32
adamw	tflink: if kparal couldn't reproduce, possibly? :)	15:32
tflink	or is this just an NFS repo failure instead of nfsiso	15:32
adamw	this is nfs repo failure, but there's a bug for nfsiso failing too.	15:33
bcl	I think it is related to the symlink wwoods addded.	15:33
bcl	not an nfs problem.	15:33
adamw	propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports a successful nfs install so we should compare notes	15:33
twu	I encounter this bug on i386	15:33
adamw	ah, so three fails...	15:34
adamw	kparal: you're weird.	15:34
adamw	:P	15:34
kparal	I did not report successful install. I just didn't see *this* bug :)	15:34
twu	I tested the i386 DVD	15:34
adamw	kparal: ah	15:34
adamw	propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes	15:35
kparal	ack	15:35
j_dulaney	ack	15:35
twu	ack	15:35
tflink	ack	15:35
adamw	#agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes	15:35
adamw	you all fail.	15:35
adamw	#undo	15:35
zodbot	Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x2cdbd610>	15:35
adamw	#agreed 806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes	15:35
adamw	that's why we do proposed, y'all. =)	15:35
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806708	15:36
tflink	adamw: you're the one who typo'd	15:36
adamw	aaand here's the nfsiso failure.	15:36
adamw	it was an intentional typo just to see if you'd notice. honest!	15:36
kparal	wasn't that supposed to be fixed in anaconda 17.14?	15:36
adamw	a very similar one was supposed to be fixed, yeah	15:37
adamw	but cra seems pretty clear he's on beta rc1	15:37
adamw	https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804813 was the previous bug	15:37
tflink	as written, +1 blocker	15:37
adamw	the effect is the same (nfsiso borked) but it's clearly not the same bug	15:37
pschindl	+1 blocker	15:38
adamw	sounds like we could do with others testing this and confirming, and adding the info needed if it fails	15:38
j_dulaney	+1 blocker	15:38
twu	I hate this bug, so +1 blocker :)	15:38
bcl	the repo=nfs* bugs are different than this one.	15:39
adamw	that means extra fun times for you!	15:39
adamw	propose #agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info	15:40
bcl	in those cases I think it loses the network when it turns on NM. In this case he's modifying the repo entry.	15:40
pschindl	ack	15:40
bcl	so don't lump them all with this one.	15:40
adamw	we're not proposing any dupage.	15:40
tflink	ack	15:41
twu	ack	15:41
adamw	#agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info	15:41
adamw	#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931	15:41
adamw	grr	15:41
adamw	#undo	15:41
zodbot	Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x21cee810>	15:41
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931	15:42
adamw	so this is the one you two are discussing in #anaconda right now, right?	15:42
kparal	yes	15:42
adamw	i'd be more comfortable taking this as a blocker if you could reproduce without using virt-install...	15:42
kparal	good idea	15:42
kparal	I hate manual tinkering with initrd, but I'll do that	15:43
tflink	I'd be interested in seeing if the impregnated initrd test case fails	15:43
adamw	the criterion wasn't really written with the scenario of using an external tool that does various other things as well as pass a kickstart in mind	15:43
tflink	since that would be the same mechanism	15:43
adamw	tflink: we have a test case for that one, right?	15:43
tflink	yep	15:43
adamw	so yeah, do that.	15:43
adamw	other votes?	15:43
bcl	-1	15:43
tflink	punt til' we know whether it's anaconda or virt-install	15:43
adamw	bcl: -1 on what grounds? do you have sufficient info now to determine it's not a blocker	15:44
adamw	?	15:44
kparal	I'd also wait a while until we know more	15:45
kparal	I'm working on it right now	15:45
bcl	I don't think we should block on virt-install not working.	15:45
adamw	bcl: well, i said it would be good to see if this also affects non-virt-install use of initrd injection	15:45
adamw	but -1 is a vote to reject it as a blocker immediately, without finding that out	15:46
bcl	I don't mean that we won't try to sort it out and fix it, just that it not working shouldn't (IMHO) block Beta.	15:46
bcl	note that I'm not a policy wonk. So my vote may be worthless :)	15:47
* kparal proposes delay until next meeting		15:48
adamw	okay, well we have more votes to delay than to reject, just wanted to check if you knew something we didn;t	15:48
bcl	nope	15:49
adamw	propose #agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting	15:49
kparal	ack	15:49
tflink	ack	15:50
twu	ack	15:50
adamw	#agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting	15:50
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805166	15:50
adamw	this one's been hanging around as proposed since tc stage, actually. we never had a clear up/down vote on blocker status/	15:51
kparal	comment #10 summarizes it	15:51
adamw	so the aim here is to source the installer as well as packages via nfs, right	15:51
kparal	source just the installer	15:52
adamw	oh, right.	15:52
kparal	the packages should be taken from default online directories	15:52
kparal	that's the use case	15:52
adamw	so you want to get the installer from nfs but packages from internet...right.	15:52
kparal	yep	15:52
bcl	I tried this last week, it is a network problem FWIW	15:52
kparal	bcl: what do you mean by network problem?	15:52
bcl	it downloads squashfs, switches root and when it turns on NM it stops working.	15:54
adamw	and this is a new issue because previously just doing a PXE boot would pull in the installer as it was part of the anaconda initramfs.	15:54
adamw	so we don't have criteria for this.\	15:54
* jskladan needs to go afk for 10 minutes		15:54
kparal	our criteria concern package repo availability, because we never needed to deal with installer fetching from a remote place	15:55
adamw	given all of that, i guess i'd vote we should add criteria to the same release level as we have PXE boot, and accept as a blocker.	15:55
j_dulaney	+1	15:55
kparal	adamw: which level is that?	15:55
kparal	we have to make the criteria more searchable (e.g. add PXE keywords and such)	15:56
kparal	anyway, +1	15:56
bcl	running squashfs over NFS really isn't a good idea, even if it does sorta work.	15:57
twu	+1	15:57
kparal	if it's documented that it doesn't work, I have no problem with it. but there's no documentation whatsoever	15:57
tflink	+1	15:57
kparal	regarding root= option	15:58
bcl	kparal: well then there's the answer :)	15:58
adamw	yeesh. sorry guys, my laptop just blackscreened.	15:58
* adamw catches up		15:58
kparal	I don't understand why it should work with repo= option and shouldn't work with root= option	15:58
adamw	bcl: doesn't that leave us with an effective regression in capabilities between loader and noloader though?	15:59
kparal	repo= just adds a definition of online repos, nothing more	15:59
adamw	how are you supposed to do a PXE install but use internet package sources?	15:59
bcl	adamw: nfs is way more fragile than http which pulls it all down and then runs it.	16:00
* Viking-Ice joins in late		16:00
bcl	I don't know if we've ever supported running stage2 from nfs.	16:00
twu	just add "repo=http://....." to the boot arguments?	16:00
* adamw notes we don't seem to have pxe criteria anyhow. sigh		16:00
kparal	twu: right, http works. that's the current workaround	16:01
twu	I feel like the pxe just refer to the kernel boot stage	16:02
j_dulaney	Hmm	16:02
kparal	this is not just about pxe. the same applies for VM boot from kernel pair	16:02
adamw	so we can either require this to work via NFS, or say that if you want to direct boot anaconda via nfs you have to provide repo=http for it to pull the squashfs from...	16:03
adamw	mmf. feels like we kinda need someone to step back and do an overview of what we actually expect to work here, then re-evaluate?	16:04
kparal	repo= is a superset of root=. nfs works with repo=, but doesn't work with root=. seems really weird to me saying nfs is not supported for root=.	16:04
bcl	how do you boot initrd via nfs? you can't, you have to pxe or local boot it.	16:04
adamw	kparal: yeah, that did seem odd.	16:04
* rbergeron peeks in between meetings, ugh		16:04
adamw	rbergeron: if i were you i'd peek right back out again	16:04
j_dulaney	Ugly in here	16:04
* kparal votes for a blocker, until anaconda publicly documents what should work and what should not		16:05
wwoods	kparal: you're wrong about repo	16:05
kparal	currently it seems to me this should work	16:05
rbergeron	adamw: OOK, a squirrel	16:05
kparal	wwoods: welcome	16:05
rbergeron	err, look, /me sighs at less funny with bad keyboard	16:06
wwoods	stage2= and method= are deprecated in favor of "repo="	16:06
j_dulaney	Squirrel?	16:06
rbergeron	j_dulaney: it's running around with my ADD meds.	16:06
wwoods	"repo=" gives the location of an *installable tree* - i.e. package repo + .treeinfo file + install.img etc	16:06
kparal	and root image	16:06
wwoods	kparal: that's 'install.img', yes	16:06
kparal	ok	16:07
kparal	it's called squashfs.img in my tree	16:07
adamw	propose #agreed defer #805166 and ask anaconda team to clearly document supported methods for remote retrieval of installer in the noloader era, then update criteria to reflect this	16:07
wwoods	"root=live:nfs:..." is not something we've supported in any release	16:07
tflink	ack	16:07
j_dulaney	ack	16:07
kparal	ack	16:07
twu	ack	16:07
pschindl	ack	16:07
wwoods	(in theory it *should* work but there seems to be some problem with the ifcfg/dhcp lease handover)	16:07
wwoods	it's already documented. it's repo=	16:08
kparal	wwoods: what if I don't have the whole installable tree mirrored?	16:09
kparal	just boot images	16:09
wwoods	that's still repo=	16:09
adamw	so basically it's not considered supported to try and pass root=(someremotesource)? repo= should always be used	16:09
kparal	but I want to fetch installer from LAN	16:09
wwoods	correct	16:09
j_dulaney	In that case	16:09
j_dulaney	Maybe -1 blcoker	16:09
adamw	okay, that seems clear enough. in that case, -1 blocker.	16:09
wwoods	kparal: that's fine. repo={http,https,nfs,ftp}	16:09
adamw	so you can pass repo= for a location which does in fact contain packages, but does contain the installer	16:10
kparal	wwoods: my use case is installer from LAN and packages from Internet	16:10
adamw	and anaconda should deal correctly with that?	16:10
wwoods	as long as there's a .treeinfo file that points to the [stage2] mainimage it should work	16:10
adamw	sigh.	16:10
adamw	does NOT in fact contain packages	16:10
wwoods	yes.	16:10
adamw	it'll let you use remote repos. okay.	16:10
kparal	wwoods: please document all of this. I'm sure it doesn't work in all cases you mentioned	16:10
kparal	wwoods: here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options	16:11
wwoods	fine, then that's a bug	16:11
wwoods	but the existing documentation is the expected behavior	16:11
adamw	"repo=	16:11
adamw	This option tells anaconda where to find the packages for installation. This option must point to a valid yum repository. "	16:11
kparal	"This option must point to a valid yum repository"	16:11
kparal	adamw: you're faster	16:11
kparal	so Packages/ must be present	16:11
adamw	(even though later on it contradicts itself and allows you to use ISOs.)	16:11
wwoods	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options#method	16:12
* j_dulaney should note that he does have a package		16:12
adamw	wwoods: it rather looks like the repo= section should be revised to be more accurate for noloader, and we should also get the installation guide updated.	16:13
wwoods	basically, method= and stage2= used to be how you did this. now you just do repo=. we'll update the docs accordingly.	16:13
wwoods	s/noloader/reality/ - noloader has not changed any of this	16:13
adamw	wwoods: well, as kparal explains it, before noloader, just pxe boot would pull in the installer, because it was part of the initramfs.	16:13
adamw	or was that an earlier change than noloader?	16:14
wwoods	in f15 and f16, yes. in every release prior, no	16:14
adamw	point.	16:14
kparal	I'm 100% sure that missing yum repository in the repo= location aborts installation. I reported bug about it. I can dig it up	16:14
kparal	so that would be blocker instead	16:14
wwoods	kparal: if that's the case I'll make sure we have some alternate method to boot with just images	16:14
twu	wwoods: thanks, and does the 'askmethod' not using any more in the future?	16:14
adamw	we'd still need to revise the criteria, if we actually wanted to consider this kind of split install blocking.	16:15
adamw	all the criteria have ever said is that remote package sources have to work.	16:15
wwoods	twu: 'askmethod' is gone - choose your method/repo argument at the boot prompt	16:15
kparal	wwoods: ok, I supposed that's what root= is for	16:15
adamw	so, anyhow, this is getting messy	16:15
wwoods	anyway, yes, docs will get revised	16:15
adamw	propose #agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work	16:15
j_dulaney	ack	16:15
twu	wwoods: thanks!	16:16
adamw	propose #action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of	16:16
* kparal links 790348		16:16
tflink	ack	16:16
kparal	ack	16:16
twu	ack	16:16
adamw	propose #action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos)	16:16
adamw	and also we probably need a pxe criterion. heh.	16:16
tflink	adamw: ack on the docs action	16:17
j_dulaney	ack	16:17
kparal	ack, but blocked on:wwoods action	16:17
* twu agree :)		16:17
adamw	cool.	16:18
adamw	#action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos)	16:18
adamw	#action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of	16:18
adamw	#agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work	16:18
adamw	whew.	16:18
j_dulaney	http://www.math.vt.edu/people/jbwillia/computer.gif	16:18
j_dulaney	After that	16:18
adamw	heh.	16:19
twu	ha ha	16:19
adamw	well, great, now i had to switch computers the proposed blocker list is in a different order. siiiigh	16:19
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806962	16:19
adamw	so, l-i-t-d dvd.iso doesn't work	16:20
adamw	tflink: right?	16:20
tflink	I'm +1 on this for consistency's sake - IIRC, we tell people to use l-i-t-d instead of dd for bootable USB install media	16:21
tflink	adamw: not as far as I can tell	16:21
* tflink use --format and --reset-mbr		16:21
tflink	used	16:21
bcl	yeah.	16:21
adamw	criteria-wise, this is a conditional breakage of "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" (alpha) for the case 'DVD image written to USB with l-i-t-d"	16:22
j_dulaney	Is this a l-i-t-d bug, or a F17 bug?	16:22
adamw	i actually should probably propose explicit criteria revisions to cover USB writing of media, but it's so common these days I'm certainly +1	16:22
adamw	probably the former, right bcl?	16:23
tflink	j_dulaney: I think that something changed w/ noloader such that l-i-t-d doesn't work any more	16:23
bcl	adamw: yes	16:23
j_dulaney	Ah	16:23
tflink	so a little bit of column A, little bit of column B	16:23
tflink	but the fix will be in livecd-tools	16:23
tflink	I think, anyways	16:23
bcl	tflink: repo seems to override root. I had to split the usb into 2 partitions for noloader.	16:24
j_dulaney	Well, then, wouldn't that be -1 blocker, then?	16:24
bcl	tflink: I'm leaning towards anaconda-dracut right now.	16:24
j_dulaney	Since the fix is livecd-tools?	16:24
adamw	j_dulaney: no, but it would mean the blocker didn't block image spins.	16:24
j_dulaney	Ah	16:24
adamw	j_dulaney: that's how we've usually handled these before.	16:24
adamw	we take the bug as a blocker, but when it's in say livecd-tools or preupgrade, that's understood to mean that the tool has to be fixed by release time, not that we delay the image composes.	16:24
tflink	j_dulaney: I can create the usb on F17 if that would make you feel better :)	16:25
j_dulaney	LOL	16:25
tflink	bcl: I certainly trust your judgement more than mine on where the issue is	16:25
* j_dulaney unwads his panties		16:25
bcl	thanks ;)	16:25
bcl	I'm +1, I think it demonstrates a bug with root and repo interaction.	16:26
adamw	j_dulaney: i think i even put a reference to this kind of situation in the sop	16:26
adamw	+1 blocker	16:26
bcl	in anaconda-dracut.	16:26
j_dulaney	Righteo	16:26
j_dulaney	+1 blocker	16:26
j_dulaney	adamw: Who reads the SOP :)	16:26
adamw	j_dulaney: yeah, docs are for wusses :)	16:27
adamw	propose #agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "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", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d. note it's one of the blockers where we require the tool to be updated by release time rather than delaying the composes	16:28
tflink	ack	16:28
tflink	scratch that - nack	16:28
adamw	patch?	16:28
j_dulaney	Real Furry Creatures from Alpha Centaurii don't use docs at all!	16:28
tflink	the bug isn't in l-i-t-d	16:28
tflink	its in anaconda-dracut which would block image compose	16:28
adamw	oh, right. bcl, agree?	16:29
bcl	yes	16:29
adamw	patch:	16:29
adamw	#agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "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", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d	16:29
adamw	simples!	16:29
tflink	ack	16:29
adamw	whew, i think i finally bored everyone to sleep.	16:30
adamw	oh, and i missed the propose from that one, so it's in effect. whee.	16:30
tflink	adamw: now you know how I feel during the blocker review meetings :)	16:30
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806867	16:31
adamw	tflink: hey, i was doing them when you were just a pup ;)	16:31
j_dulaney	LOL	16:31
tflink	point taken	16:31
adamw	this seems like a straightforward preupgrade fail, hence blocker per the beta preupgrade criterion	16:31
adamw	+1	16:31
tflink	isn'	16:31
brunowolff	+1 blocker	16:31
adamw	tflink: i think i was in charge of the infamous one which went on for seven hours, with a lunch break./	16:32
tflink	t this a dupe?	16:32
adamw	tflink: possibly, i didn't look for dupes. of what, though? it's different from the preupgrade bug we had pre-RC.	16:32
adamw	that was the root= issue.	16:32
j_dulaney	+1	16:32
bcl	looks like preupgrade needs to be updated for noloader	16:32
pschindl	+1 blocker, I have met this when I was using inst.repo=hd:.. option too	16:32
adamw	at least, i think it's different.	16:32
mkrizek	+1	16:32
tflink	adamw: I thought the one that seems to have been closed was about handling usrmove	16:33
tflink	come to think of it, that might have been upgrading w/ anaconda	16:33
tflink	+1 blocker, though	16:33
adamw	yeah, the pre-rc one hit the 'no or empty root= parameter' kernel panic	16:33
adamw	post-rc we get a dracut error, so clearly, different.	16:33
tflink	adamw: I don't think I've had the pleasure of a 7 hour review yet and hopefully it'll stay that way	16:34
adamw	heh	16:34
j_dulaney	I'll skip such	16:34
adamw	you can never leave	16:34
j_dulaney	I have class in a while	16:35
adamw	propose #agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria"	16:35
j_dulaney	ack	16:35
pschindl	ack	16:35
tflink	ack	16:35
brunowolff	ack	16:35
adamw	#agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria"	16:35
adamw	okay, circling back briefly:	16:35
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 (redux)	16:35
adamw	this is the virt-install one again	16:35
kparal	see comment 5	16:35
adamw	kparal just confirmed it happens with no virt-install involved, just per the initramfs-injection test case	16:35
adamw	so in that case i'm +1 blocker as we still have that "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" beta criterion.	16:36
tflink	+1 blocker	16:36
kparal	+1 blocker	16:36
j_dulaney	+1 blocker	16:36
adamw	propose #agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"	16:37
tflink	ack	16:37
pschindl	ack	16:37
adamw	#agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"	16:37
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806784	16:37
bcl	kparal: thanks.	16:37
kparal	bcl: doing my best	16:38
adamw	as described this is a blocker, though it'd be good to have confirmation (BIOS RAID can be temperamental)	16:38
j_dulaney	+1 blocker, looks pretty clear	16:38
tflink	as described +1 blocker	16:38
adamw	i can confirm this locally when i have a chance (I have bios raid test config)	16:38
tflink	would be nice to have more HW info, though	16:38
tflink	in case this is like the NVRAID bug from F16	16:39
tflink	or any of the intel raid bugs	16:39
adamw	yeah, exactly	16:39
adamw	pdc is triggering vague bells somewhere	16:39
tflink	pdc?	16:39
adamw	ahh, promise.	16:39
tflink	oh, the device	16:39
adamw	in the kickstart. yeah.	16:40
tflink	isn't that technically HW RAID, then?	16:40
adamw	mine is an intel controller, so pretty different.	16:40
adamw	no	16:40
tflink	then how is your setup HW RAID? Isn't it the same thing?	16:40
adamw	it's just a particular brand of dumb motherboard bios raid	16:40
adamw	i have both	16:41
adamw	HW RAID controllers look to anaconda exactly like a SATA drive or something	16:41
* tflink is not completely convinced		16:41
adamw	the kernel doesn't even know there's RAID involved, really. all it sees is a disk.	16:41
tflink	but this doesn't need to be solved here	16:41
adamw	so it shows up as /dev/sdX	16:41
tflink	just like bios raid, no?	16:41
adamw	no.	16:41
adamw	BIOS RAID needs an OS driver.	16:41
tflink	so does my fancy LSI RAID card	16:42
adamw	anyhow	16:42
adamw	this is definitely bios raid, not hardware raid. i'm right, just trust me. =)	16:42
tflink	like I said, doesn't need to be figured out now	16:42
adamw	even if it was hardware raid it'd be a blocker, so kinda academic.	16:42
tflink	I'm not agreeing with your diagnosis, just tabling the discussion	16:42
tflink	yep, exactly	16:42
brunowolff	I think we should mark this +1 blocker and then reconsider if it turns out to be dependent on specific hardware.	16:42
adamw	propose #agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"	16:43
brunowolff	ack	16:43
tflink	ack	16:43
adamw	even the criterion is the same =)	16:43
j_dulaney	ack	16:43
adamw	#agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"	16:43
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806466	16:43
adamw	we're nearly done, btw.	16:43
tflink	good, isn't fesco going to kick us out in a few minutes?	16:44
adamw	i thought they go in like 1-2 hours, not now	16:44
tflink	I thought that there was a meeting 2 hours after us	16:44
adamw	oh,. no. you're right	16:44
adamw	speed up!	16:44
adamw	so anaconda writes an ifcfg file, but it says ONBOOT=no so the network doesn't come up after boot.	16:45
kparal	history repeats itself	16:45
limburgher	adaw: 15 minutes, though that's up for discussion.	16:45
adamw	this combines with #806664 to be slightly icky, really.	16:45
tflink	not sure this is blocker, regardless of how nice it might be to fix it	16:46
adamw	but still, we're in about the same state we were with tc2, ironically, where you have to do 'dhclient' to get the network up. and we considered that nth.	16:46
adamw	fixing either bug would make things better.	16:46
adamw	i guess to be consistent we should probably take both as nth.	16:46
tflink	yeah, I'd be OK with NTH	16:46
j_dulaney	Nice to have, maybe, blocker, no	16:46
adamw	okay, sounds like a consensus	16:46
adamw	in the interests of time i'm gonna stop doing proposed	16:46
bcl	hmm, I swear ifup eth0 working for me with a RC2 minimal install...	16:46
brunowolff	NTH sounds reasonable	16:47
adamw	#agreed 806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria)	16:47
adamw	bcl: see, i thought so too, then i re-tested it, and it failed.	16:47
adamw	bcl: try it again	16:47
adamw	haha. the bugs are anagrams.	16:47
adamw	#agreed 806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky)	16:47
adamw	#topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804522	16:48
adamw	this is a software RAID test case failure, hence seems solidly blockerish.	16:48
kparal	adamw: how many more on the list?	16:48
adamw	criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot "	16:48
tflink	+1	16:48
adamw	i think this is the last.	16:48
kparal	+1	16:49
pschindl	+1	16:49
adamw	we do have a couple more agenda items, though probably everyone's lost the will to live by now.	16:49
adamw	#agreed 804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"	16:49
j_dulaney	+1 blocker	16:49
adamw	okay, i think that's all the proposed. we don't have time to review the accepted	16:49
adamw	lots for anaconda team to be getting on with :/	16:49
adamw	i'll go through and secretaryize post-meeting.	16:49
brunowolff	+1 blocker on 804522	16:49
adamw	I propose we delay the 'project' status discussion to next week, we don't have time for it	16:50
adamw	anyone object?	16:50
j_dulaney	Nope	16:50
brunowolff	That can wait.	16:50
tflink	agreed	16:50
adamw	#agreed agenda item "'Project' status" is tabled until next week due to lack of time and rapidly decreasing will to live	16:50
adamw	#topic Test Day report	16:51
adamw	so we had Sugar test day on 03-22 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-22_Sugar_Desktop	16:51
adamw	on the minus side only satellit_ and cerlyn showed up, on the plus side they did an incredible amount of work	16:51
adamw	looks like a successful event by the 'results' yardstick	16:51
j_dulaney	adamw: I tested, too, but didn't put up my results	16:52
* j_dulaney needs to do so		16:52
adamw	#info Sugar test day had low turnout - only satellit_ and cerlyn - but they achieved an impressive amount of testing	16:52
adamw	#info j_dulaney also tested but has not yet filed results	16:52
adamw	j_dulaney: thanks!	16:52
adamw	oh, i see one result from Frederick Grose also.	16:52
adamw	#topic upcoming QA events	16:53
j_dulaney	I've got to bug out	16:53
adamw	we have a couple of test days coming up this week - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-27_Kdump , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-29_Gnome_Shell_Software_Rendering	16:53
j_dulaney	Time for class	16:53
adamw	kdump test day needs its matrix extending but otherwise looks okay	16:53
adamw	oh, they also copy/pasted 'live image' from the sugar test day and that needs fixing, heh	16:53
adamw	shell test day has a note saying they'll get the test cases in by wed	16:54
adamw	so those look like they're in hand, but we should get to publicity	16:54
adamw	the go/no-go is set for wednesday, so lots of crazy blocker fixing and RC2 spinning needs to be done between now and then	16:54
adamw	release readiness is thursday	16:54
tflink	looks to be a wonderfully fun week!	16:55
adamw	#info kdump and software rendering test days set for tuesday and thursday, both need some more prep but look to be broadly in hand	16:55
adamw	#info go/no-go is wednesday (schedule) and release readiness is thursday	16:55
adamw	okay, we have four minutes for a quick autoqa update	16:55
adamw	#topic autoqa update	16:55
adamw	tflink, kparal - go!	16:55
* mmaslano reminds FESCo meeting starts in 5 minutes		16:55
kparal	for the sake of time	16:56
kparal	no updates	16:56
tflink	same here	16:56
adamw	mmaslano: that's why i'm typing so frantically. =)	16:56
adamw	kparal: what are we going to do with the other 3.5 minutes?!	16:56
kparal	I can repeat it	16:56
* adamw lays down a beat		16:56
adamw	no updates no updates. n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-no-n-n-n-n updates-dates-dates.	16:56
kparal	no. updates.	16:56
adamw	#info the AutoQA news is, there is no news (for time reasons)	16:57
adamw	#topic open floor	16:57
adamw	and we have a whole 2.5 minutes for open floor	16:57
adamw	any substantial discussions we can do in 2.5 minutes? anyone? bueller?	16:57
* Southern_Gentlem shoots the meeting and puts it out of its misery		16:58
adamw	Southern_Gentlem: on behalf of everyone: thanks	16:58
* adamw sets fuse for 1 minute		16:58
* tflink sheds a tear for the poor QA meeting		16:59
brunowolff	I was hoping for a beef miracle of no slip this release. That's going to be tough now.	16:59
adamw	thanks for showing up and mostly surviving without permanent brain damage, folks	16:59
adamw	brunowolff: never say die!	16:59
adamw	brunowolff: also, blame wwoods.	16:59
tflink	brunowolff: they don't call it a miracle for nothing :)	16:59
adamw	#endmeeting	16:59

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.8 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!