On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
1. "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
existing clean Windows installation and install a bootloader which can
boot into both Windows and Fedora."
This one is simply dropping the UEFI get-out clause from the current
Final criterion. I am a big solid +1 to this. If no-one has any
objections let's get this one implemented this week.
Agreed.
2. "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
existing OS X installation, install and configure a bootloader that will
boot Fedora; if the boot menu presents OS X entries, they should boot OS
X."
(so far as I could see on a quick skim back through the thread, this was
the most recent version of the OS X proposal). I am +1 to this too, it
seems reasonable. We could perhaps insert that the Fedora install
process should not render the OS X install unbootable from the EFI boot
manager?
If you want to, I won't oppose it. But it's really corner case to make it
unbootable from the built-in boot manager, to the degree the installation is probably
damaged which then triggers the corruption criterion. So we could just cross this land
mine if we ever get to it, and call it corruption and pull that card out to block on.
3. The installer must be able to install into free space alongside
an
existing GNU/Linux installation, install and configure a bootloader that
will boot both systems, within the limitations of the upstream
bootloader."
Within the limitations? [show] Purpose of this clause is to not require
us to fix upstream bootloader bugs or design limitations.
This is the complex one we're still struggling with. I think the above
is possibly a little broad and could do with either limiting to
stock-ish installs of 'commonly-used' or 'popular' distributions, or
some more vaguely-worded wiggle room clause. I don't want to have to
come up with some kind of criterion judo to justify us not slipping
Final release three weeks to fix, I don't know, dual-boot with an xfs
install of Fermi or something (no disrespect intended, Fermi users…)
I understand the logic. I just think that if we step on Fermi's tail and it's
self-evidently our fault, we should block on that. I mean, the only way this gets better
is if distros agree to standardize on something: either on a handful of layouts (probably
fat chance at that) or on a self-describing system that allows arbitrary yet sane layouts.
But right now distros are comfortable stepping on each others tails (sometimes their
own).
Chris Murphy