Adam Williamson wrote on 2014-09-09 19:48 (GMT-0700): > The specification of *dual* not *multi* was intentional. IIRC the > discussion, anyhow. Fine. That's what I thought too. But... > It's not about support "existing" but us blocking release on it > *working*. The code will make a best effort to configure boot for > whatever OSes it finds, unless we intentionally nerf it as we may for OS > x, but the criteria are about the things we absolutely require must work > for us to ship the release; in this context, we decided more than two > OSes was being a little too ambitious. Given the widespread mis-use of dual-boot to mean more than one, I was trying to make the point that the written blocking language used needs to be especially carefully crafted to ensure it *can't* be misinterpreted to mean more than two. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
