>>17:10:26 <adamw> i can't really vote -1 on this
under the current criteria unless someone tries on a newer mac and it works. but given
, i am entirely open to dropping the criterion on the basis of failure to test.
I think it's specious to drop the criterion on this basis. There are
plenty of other things that don't get tested and their criterion don't
get dropped. It's always a last minute rush to test things like active
directory, Free IPA, iSCSI, you know the list way better than I do, so
I don't know why you're picking on this one in contrast to others.
>>17:12:02 <sgallagh> I've never understood why we
would block on failures to run on hardware that actively tries to make it difficult to run
Please elaborate on what this means. Specifically I have no idea what
the word "actively" is referring to.
>>17:20:03 <adamw> oh that's right, Apple decided to
have HFS+ formatted 'ESP'. because they're assholes.
No, Macs have a FAT32 ESP just like other hardware does. And it can
use a bootloader on that ESP just like other hardware does. It's how
Ubuntu and openSUSE work on Macs.
It's Anaconda and mactel-boot that make an hfsplus ESP, in order to
trick the firmware into thinking the Fedora bootloaders are a macOS
instance, so that the Mac's bootloader and startup panel will show
Fedora as a boot option. openSUSE and Ubuntu aren't as pretty but
things still work in a more standardized fashion.
So feel free to drop the pretty UI/Ux going forward if maintaining
that is going to cause problems, but I don't see how Fedora meets its
goals by claiming Macs make things difficult for Linux, when in this
Go No Go meeting is a pre-plan to actively make Fedora more difficult
to use on Macs.