4:07 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi folks! Time for an update on the Fedora 27 Beta status.
tl;dr action summary
====================
Accepted blockers
-----------------
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489164
ACTION: QA to test and karma update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fee0766883
then check whether backgrounds are fixed for all blocking desktops
after compose run with update included.
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487867
ACTION: QA to test and karma update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a8b4e05ef3
3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487305
ACTION: kernel team to provide a suitable update, ARM QA to test it
4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475570
ACTION: anaconda and LVM folks to co-ordinate and provide a fix
5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170803
ACTION: QA to confirm this is fixed already
6. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483170
ACTION: lvrabec to fix remaining SELinux denials during FreeIPA
deployment
Proposed blockers
-----------------
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490072
ACTION: QA to test and see how commonly encountered, desktop team to fix
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489862
ACTION: QA to answer outstanding questions in bug
Test coverage
-------------
QA to cover several missing tests (see below for details), stand by to
test with new validation compose soon.
Bug-by-bug detail
=================
Accepted blockers
-----------------
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489164 - distribution - NEW
Fedora 27 Beta backgrounds must be different from Fedora 26
This is kind of a tracker for all the work that's needed to get the
backgrounds updated in all blocking desktops. We now have the package
reviewed and submitted as an update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fee0766883
with the desktop-backgrounds changes included, but there may be
other changes needed also. So at the least we need karma for that
update, then we need to figure out what else needs to change to ensure
at least Xfce, GNOME and KDE have the updated backgrounds.
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487867 - grub2 - ON_QA
Wrong version on legacy variant (e.g. grub2-pc) Obsoletes:
This is the bug that causes upgrades to choke on grub2 package
dependencies. An update is available and just needs testing and karma -
you should be able to test just by verifying that the issues no longer
appear if you try upgrading with the updates-testing repo enabled.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a8b4e05ef3
3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487305 - kernel - MODIFIED
Raspberry Pi 3: run-initial-setup hangs
Peter's done a build that ought to fix this, but not yet submitted an
update - so we either need a new update created, or the existing update
for kernel-4.13.0-1.fc27 edited to include the new build. Ideally we'd
prefer a build with just what's in the frozen repos now plus the fix
for this, but the 4.13.0-1.fc27 update has been in testing for a while
and has +2 karma, so it probably works OK. However, there's another
issue: both 4.13.0-1 and 4.13.1-301 were built with debugging enabled,
and I think we usually ship Beta with debugging disabled. So we kinda
need another build with debugging disabled, I think.
I think we usually leave debugging off once we branch letting rawhide
continue on down the debug route, must have slipped through the
cracks, have kicked off a 302 and will submit that as an update on
completion.
> 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475570 - lvm2 - NEW
> Rescue mode fails while trying to access LVM volumes from existing install
>
> This is a failure of the installer's rescue mode when trying to mount
> LVM volumes from an existing Fedora install. There's no fix built yet,
> but there's some suggestion of a 'quick fix' that could be done on the
> anaconda side in the bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475570#c13
> We need someone to take charge of deciding how to fix this, and...fix
> it.
>
> 5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170803 - python-blivet - ON_QA
> calls e2fsck on all ext volumes, provides no status indicator, and hangs
indefinitely if e2fsck doesn't exit
>
> This is almost certainly fixed, we just need someone to test and
> confirm with a system where the effect is obvious. The fix has actually
> broken filesystem resizing in most cases, but that technically blocks
> Final rather than Beta.
>
> 6. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483170 - selinux-policy-targeted -
MODIFIED
> 'map' denial for comm 'ns-slapd' path
'/run/dirsrv/slapd-DOMAIN-LOCAL.stats' (breaks FreeIPA deployment)
>
> The specific denial initially reported here is fixed, but there are
> still denials preventing FreeIPA server deployment working with the
> latest selinux-policy that has reached stable (-280), so we need
> Lukas to fix those. I have listed the remaining denials in this bug
> and in #1488404.
>
>
> Proposed blockers
> -----------------
>
> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490072 - gnome-shell - ASSIGNED
> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. #0 0x00007f16279aa68f
in _cogl_boxed_value_set_x () ...
>
> This is a crash in mutter which seems quite easy to trigger by running
> VMs in virt-manager and Boxes. There's an Ubuntu bug which reports
> the same crash triggered by some sort of Ubuntu update tool as well.
> I have reproduced this on two boxes and there are at least three other
> reporters across this bug, an upstream GNOME bug and a Launchpad bug,
> so it seems fairly easy to hit. It would be useful if other folks
> running GNOME on Wayland in F27 could test launching VMs in Boxes and/or
> virt-manager and confirm whether doing this sometimes crashes their
> GNOME session. Of course, we could also do with the GNOME folks
> figuring out a fix.
>
> 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489862 - selinux-policy - ON_QA
> There is FW Raid set, but there is no /dev/md* device
>
> There are some questions in the bug that need answering: does this work
> OK if using a network or DVD install image? Does it work OK if booting
> a live image with enforcing=0 ? You need an Intel firmware RAID set
> (that's known to basically work with previous Fedora releases) to test
> this.
>
>
> Test coverage
> -------------
>
> Looking at https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/27/ ,
> some things jump out...
>
> * The Cloud tests appear never to have been run during this cycle.
> * Most of the Beta desktop tests have never been run on KDE during this cycle.
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_workstation_core_applications has never
been run during this cycle.
> * Our old friend https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_install_to_SAS still
isn't sorted out.
> *
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Basic_... has
never been run during this cycle.
> * Neither has https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Kickstart_File_Path_Ks_Cfg
.
> * Many upgrade tests have no results, this is because they constantly fail in
> openQA, but not necessarily for release blocking reasons; I will look into
> that and update.
> * The tests for reporting crashes from anaconda haven't been run at all:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_save_traceback_to_bug...
> * Server test coverage looks bad, but this is mainly because openQA doesn't
> report failures and FreeIPA has been broken for the entire F27 cycle.
> With a couple more SELinux fixes most of those tests should show up
> as passing. We do still need the AD tests run, though.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net