DevHeads.net

Fedora 31 Blocker status email #1

Oh wow, it's already that time in the Fedora 31 release cycle. Welcome
to the first Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email!

Action summary
====================

Accepted blockers
2. libdnf — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343</a>
ACTION: QA to verify libdnf-0.35.1-2 fixes the bug

Proposed blockers
1. anaconda — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732620" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732620">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732620</a>
ACTION: anaconda maintainers to build new package which includes upstream fix

2. gnome-shell — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908</a>
ACTION: gnome-shell maintainers to verify the issue is resolved after rebuild

3. initial-setup — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415</a>
ACTION: initial-setup maintainers to diagnose issue

4. kernel — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388</a>
ACTION: QA team to determine if btrfs should be excluded from blocker
criteria and perhaps propose dropping it from the installer

5. systemd — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699</a>
ACTION: decide if this qualifies as a blocker

Bug-by-bug detail
=============

Accepted blockers
Package was added to comps to replace dap-server package which no
longer exists. It's unclear if the comps group should continue to
carry bes as an optional package. If it can be
dropped, this is no longer a blocker. If it should remain, the bes
package needs to be fixed.

2. libdnf — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727343</a> — ON_QA
PackageKit: libdnf::Repo::Impl::detachLibsolvRepo(): packagekitd
killed by SIGSEGV

Appears to be fixed in libdnf-0.35.1-2.

Proposed blockers
Fix merged upstream: <a href="https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2052" title="https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2052">https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2052</a>

2. gnome-shell — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731908</a> — NEW
After upgrading gnome-shell, mutter and gnome-desktop3 to version
3.33.4-1 disappear login screen

Suspected to be related to a soname bump in libgnome-desktop. If so,
it will be resolved when components are rebuilt against the new
version.

3. initial-setup — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731415</a> — NEW
Network spoke doesn't work on ARM initial-setup

Selecting the "network setup" spoke causes installation to hang on
Raspberry Pi 3.

4. kernel — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388</a> — NEW
Circular locking often causes btrfs installs to hang with
kernel-5.3.0-0.rc0.git7.1.fc31 and later

Installations since kernel-5.3.0-0.rc0.git7.1.fc31 often fail during
package installation. The kernel team proposes excluding btrfs from
any blocker criteria.

5. systemd — <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715699</a> — POST
LiveOS boot, journalctl is missing many early messages

Rejected as a blocker previously, but renominated. The question is:
does missing the first ~25 seconds of log messages violate the "is
working" part of the logging criterion?