On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:47 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 16:31 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> "Breaking bootability of other Linux OS's would not be a release
> blocking bug. While breaking bootability of Windows or OS X should be
> considered a release blocking bug, unless the installer adequately
> informs the user in advance that their prior OS may not be bootable
> after installing Fedora."
> Is that a reasonable policy?
We've never blocked on OS X like that, and I'd want to know if the folks
involved in actually implementing this (anaconda team, basically) are on
board with that.
The absolute simplest way to solve this would be to fix this bug, which would make 2 of
the 4 broken OS X entries functional. This is a Fedora specific bug, with a documented
fix, and no action taken in a year. So yeah it does seem it needs to be a blocker to get
traction but if there's another way to get it fixed…
##closed duplicate but more concise
explanation of problem and solution
Another approach I took was refusing the premise we even need OS X boot entries in GRUB,
so why not just disable os-prober on Macs, and then the four broken OS X options won't
even appear. Instead the user can use the built-in firmware boot manager to boot either
Fedora or OS X. Maybe there's some legitimate concern some users won't know how to
activate this boot manager using the option key at the startup chime? This RFE was
likewise proposed a while ago, changed to something else, neither proposal going forward,
and then being close without action.
Thing is, even if we go with 2, arguably 1 is still a bug and should be fixed. Maybe the
user wants OS X boot entries in GRUB, and if they want them they should work.