From Fedora Project Wiki

Fedora Release Engineering Meeting :: Monday 2008-04-28

Fedora 9

  • over 300 packages in dist-f9 that are not f9-final
  • 50-55 bugs on the blocker list that aren't in MODIFIED
  • serious blocker:
  • Cannot install packages from repositories from which RPM-GPG-KEYs have not been installed
  • See log for more details

Release Candidate

  • start spinning RCs on Thursday or Friday of this week

IRC Transcript

-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering Meeting - ROll Call13:03
f13ping: spot rdieter lmacken13:04
nottingrdieter: whoops, knew i forgot someone. sorry.13:04
* spot is here13:04
* wwoods in the house like furniture13:04
skvidalwwoods: nailed to the floor and covered with rubber?13:05
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: rel-eng meeting: F9!13:05
f13so... I've been gone for a few days, how's F9?13:05
warrennotting pointed out over 300 packages in dist-f9 that are not f9-final.  Should we be concerned?13:05
warrenis the buildroot f9-final or dist-f9?13:06
f13warren: buildroot is f9-final13:06
f13I sent out a call to arms a week ago to help with this, a more targetted look13:06
nottingwe've got ~50-55 bugs on the blocker list that aren't in MODIFIED13:06
f13what I really want is to look through the blocker list, see what has been closed since the freeze, and which of those packages are in teh 300 list13:06
wwoodsF9 is... worrying me a bit. I've been monitoring the blocker list13:06
wwoodsAFAICT: in the past week, we've closed 20-30 blockers13:07
wwoodsand added the same number13:07
nottingre: those 300 packages. i was going to send mail with the list. should i take the time to do individual mails to the package maintainers, or just dump to -devel-list?13:07
f13wwoods: are they actual "blockers"?  I haven't done any incoming review of them13:07
f13notting: hrm, I assume you'd rather just dump to the list right?13:08
nottingf13: yes :)13:08
wwoodson the bright (?) side I think we found our traditional "oh shit oh shit" last-minute nastybug13:08
wwoodsbug 44344513:08
buggbotBug low, urgent, ---, Robin Norwood, ASSIGNED , Cannot install packages from repositories from which RPM-GPG-KEYs have not been installed.13:08
f13wwoods: which is funny as "last minute" given that we had signed packages over a week ago13:08
wwoodsI'd say.. probably half the bugs on the blocker list are actually blockerworthy13:08
wwoodswell, okay, maybe there's still room for another last-minute doombug13:10
* rdieter covers ears, la la la13:11
nottingf13: also, when sending this mail, should we move the pkgs to updates-candidate?13:11
wwoodsbut in my estimation that's the only bug on the list that is both a) a non-negotiable release blocker, and b) the correct fix would definitely take longer than we have13:12
f13notting: getting to that later13:12
wwoodspretty much everything else is, you know.. a one-line fix. it just takes a week to figure out which line to change.13:13
* wwoods exaggerating and oversimplifying13:13
wwoodsspeaking of signed packages: did someone sign the 3 unsigned packages (control-center, gnome-desktop, gnome-settings-daemon)13:14
f13ok, I'll try to roll my sleeves up and do some review/culling today13:14
f13wwoods: I do believe notting took care of that13:14
f13(and also, wasn't that a great test of what the tools will do when an unsigned package is encountered?)13:14
wwoodsheh. yes!13:14
wwoodsclever move, that13:14
warrendo we know how unsigned packages are making it into the mirrors?13:15
warrenthose 3 weren't the only unsigned13:16
* poelcat was just going to ask about those :)13:16
f13warren: the mash output will tell us when there is something unsigned.13:16
warrenf13: was mash doing so a few days ago?13:16
nottingthose 3 was because they were tagged on saturday (?) and neither f13 nor I got around to signing them before rawhide went out13:16
wwoodsa few days ago we weren't requiring signed packages13:16
warrennotting: and the case where ltsp went out unsigned is a mystery?13:16
f13wwoods: yea we were13:16
nottingwarren: yeah13:16
wwoodsonly after we changed fedora-release13:17
f13wwoods: right, which was nearly a week ago13:17
wwoodswarren: the basic problem here is that the f9 repo is actually just a redirect to rawhide13:17
warrenFor the reason of those 3 packages I'm afraid of tagging anything myself now.13:18
warrenThat's why my participation on rel-eng list dropped off13:18
wwoodsso if a package gets tagged without being signed it goes out unsigned13:18
wwoodswhich is a problem13:18
warrenThere is no guarantee that f13 or notting will be around13:18
wwoodsso, yeah, the tag has to be done by someone with the signing key13:18
* wwoods not tagging anything unless a signer is around anymore13:18
f13or just don't do a fire-forget13:18
warrenwwoods: there are two separate issues, that, and ltsp which was signed but went out unsigned anyway.13:18
wwoodsyeah I don't know anything about that13:19
f13warren: what day did it go out unsigned?13:19
warrenf13: I don't know, only noticed it yesterday13:19
nottingf13: it has cached signatures from 04-18. dunno if it had signed packages, because apparently calling write-signed-rpms rewrites them13:19
f13warren: what arch?13:20
warrenf13: x86_64 for sure, I didn't look at others13:20
f13checking the mash archives, it doesn't appear to have been sinced since before 4/20 at least13:21
warrenif it is happening for this one package, perhaps it is happening to others/13:21
f13warren: I don't think so.13:21
f13but we can quickly check13:22
f13$ find /pub/fedora/linux/development/ -name "*.rpm"|xargs rpmdev-checksig |grep -v 4f2a6fd213:22
f13that's running on releng1, it'll tell us what things are unsigned.  I only expect ltsp13:23
nottingf13: hey, ok if i clean out a couple months of ancient rawhide trees?13:23
f13notting: yes13:23
f13ok, we're actually finding a bit more unsigned, I"ll clean these up today13:24
wwoodsare there signers other than f13 and notting?13:25
warrenf13: what type of unsigned?  tagged but not signed, or like ltsp?13:25
f13warren: it wouldn't be in the development/ directory if it weren't tagged.13:26
nottingf13: i wonder if it's generally unsigned, or write-signed-rpms failed somewhere13:26
f13warren: likely it's another case where the cached signature exists, but the written copy doesn't for reasons of signed_unsigned being a steaming pile of shit.13:26
nottinghaha. markmc already sent the list of new stuff to fedora-devel13:26
f13notting: nice13:27
wwoodsdoh! I'm on the list13:28
f13hah, somehow I am too13:28
f13well nwo that we've talked the signing issue to death, lets move on a bit13:30
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: rel-eng meeting: dist-f9-updates-candidate13:30
nottingf13: it's created, but unpopulated (and not the default)13:30
f13we really need to start directing builds to go there, and make bodhi start accepting update requests13:30
f13however that means we would then have to do two steps when tagging things, move-pkg from dist-f9-updates-candidate to dist-f9, and then tag for f9-final13:31
f13well, I guess we don't /have/ to, but it does make things cleaner13:32
lmackenso shall I add F9 to bodhi, and allow for submissions ?13:32
wwoodspeople have already tried to build f-9 updates13:32
f13lmacken: only once we've setup dist-f9-updates-candidate with allt he pending things in dist-f913:33
nottingf13: shall i move over all these things?13:33
f13and, you'll have to keep it from showing up in teh push lists so that we can continue pusing f7/8 updates13:33
lmackenf13: yep, there is a 'locked' boolean for each release that does just that13:33
f13notting: sure, just remember we have to do move-pkg when tagging now13:33
warrenmove-pkg from dist-f9-updates-candidate to dist-f9?13:34
f13warren: yes, and then tag-pkg f9-final13:35
warrenf13: is there any time of night we should be able to tag until without fear?13:36
nottingwhen did we move rawhide to?13:37
warrennotting: I was referring to "will f13 or notting sign stuff"13:37
f13warren: just make sure one of us is around to sign.13:38
nottingwarren: right, but that's still a relevant data point13:38
nottingmidnight eastern should be fine13:38
nottingand possibly later if i'm paying attention13:39
nottingoh good. packages that abort in %post . *sigh*13:39
nottingwwoods: one more blocker for you!13:40
wwoodsoh yeah: the mouse capplet needs a package which wasn't submitted for review until saturday13:41
wwoodsha ha ha!13:41
nottingf13: ok, will send mail about the shuffle to devel-announce & -evel13:41
wwoodswho do we poke to get that through with the quickness?13:42
f13wwoods: any packager can review it13:42
f13wwoods: including you!  (:13:42
wwoodsaw dammit13:43
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: rel-eng meeting: release candidates13:43
f13The schedule has us spinning RCs as of Thursday/Friday of this week13:44
f13The box that I use to do composes was supposed to get moved into the Boston lab, and subsequently moved early over to the new building and thus be available over the weekend13:44
f13As of yet, I cannot reconnect to said box13:44
f13jeremy was handling this, and I do not know what the expected state of things is, so I'm not in panic mode yet13:45
wwoodswhat happens if it turns out the box is on fire or something?13:48
wwoodsis there a backup plan?13:48
nottingwe find a different box :)13:49
f13all I need is an x86_64 machine that can run mock13:49
wwoodsI assume it's just "grab another machine with fat disks"13:49
f13I think we have... a few of those.13:49
f13hey guess what?  more corrupted packages!13:49
f13paraview needs a rebuild.13:49
warrenHow dangerous is it to add the entire list of new packages to f9-final?13:50
nottingwarren: i wouldn't13:50
f13warren: uh, no.13:52
f13pingou: that's not necessary in this meeting.13:52
pingousorry I have just seen that <f13> wwoods: any packager can review it but if you need help why not ask around ? I believe you have other things to do than a review no ?13:52
warrenI wasn't suggesting it, just asking about the danger.13:53
wwoodsyeah, I'll probably just ask around in #fedora-devel13:53
f13warren: thats a rather giant pile of untested packages and we've got 4 working days until RC13:53
wwoodsokay so candidates will get built later this week and we should rock on down the blocker list until then13:57
wwoodsanything else we need to cover? I asked all the questions I've got, I think13:58
rdieterwwoods: can I have a sec (after meeting is ok)?13:59
wwoodsrdieter: sure14:00
nottinglmacken: want me to poke you when i'm done moving stuff to updates-candidate?14:00
f13I think that's it14:00

Generated by 2.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!