On 11/07/2014 04:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks. We've had a discussion going for a few months now over on
test@ about release criteria for dual/multi-booting with other Linux
installations. I actually thought this discussion had made it here to
a-d-l at some point, but it seems I was mistaken in that.
So I mistakenly proposed an F21 Final criterion requiring dual-boot with
Fedora to work (on the false assumption everyone was already working
under that expectation already). I'm withdrawing it as a proposal for
F21, but I think it makes sense for F22, so I'm keeping it as a live
proposal, and I'll re-post it here:
===
When installing to a system containing an existing installation of
the same Fedora release or either of the two previous releases,
the installer must configure the new installation's bootloader such that
it can successfully boot the existing installation.
[Footnote] Typical configurations only: This criterion applies only to
installations (both existing and new) using default or very common
storage and bootloader configurations.
[Footnote] Platforms: This criterion applies to all supported
configurations described in
[[Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot|the
Alpha criteria]], but does not apply to mixed configurations, e.g. it
does not require that a UEFI native installation of one Fedora release
be able to configure its bootloader to boot a BIOS native installation
of another Fedora release.
===
What do folks think about that as an F22 Final criterion? In the test@
discussion there's a rather broader proposal from cmurf which covers
dual booting with other distros and is less restrictive as to the
supported configurations, but I thought it might be easier to get
consensus for something more restricted at least as a starting point.
I agree.
However, there is some clarification I need.
1. How about multiboot between Fedora and RHEL? I am think more in the
idea of Fedora booting a RHEL/CentOS installation rather than the
opposite. To say that this was not supported is also reasonable.
2. I assume that this applies to a single bootloader and that
bootloader is grub2. We are not talking about multiboot extlinux or
about booting extlinux from grub2. IIRC, both of these are possible
but I consider them to be beyond the scope of the problem we are
trying to solve.
3. We are talking about being able to multiboot OS X or Windows.
Windows implemented as chainload +1 and OS X as ? where the approach
is better described by Chris Murphy.
4. While there once was a very reasonable requirement to multiboot
other distributions and systems including *BSD, I consider that the
current virtualization technology has greatly reduced the need to
support booting such systems. If it works, that is fine and if it
does not work out of the box, the need will likely involve an
"expert" who will be able to make it work.
And then there is linux16/initrd16 versus 32 bit linux/initrd. Is there
some configuration where linux16/initrd16 will *not* work? That is, is
there some situation where a feature in the 32 bit implementation is needed?
BTW, is linuxefi/initrdefi a 16 bit or a 32 bit implementation? My
guess: 32 bit.
Adam, I believe you have basically nailed what the criteria should be.
This is in complete agreement with my Rule Number One: *do not destroy a
working system to install a new system*! And this rule is why I do
fresh installs rather than (fedup) upgrades.
Gene
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
