On Nov 7, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 think it’s inappropriate to stomp on the bootability of other distros, more than stomping on ourselves. Breaking Fedora n-1 bootability is kinda perversely amusing, but it’s just bad manners to do it to another OS. That’s why there’s Windows and OS X criteria to make sure we don’t render them unbeatable. It’s just not a good experience. My broader idea was restricted to that of “if upstream grub works” but Fedora’s grub breaks boot, then it’s our bug and we should block on such a bug until it’s fixed. This does burden the tester to build upstream grub to demonstrate that it would have worked in a case where Fedora’s grub doesn’t. Arguably that’s an unfair burden, I’m open to a more fair metric. And also, upstream grub isn’t exactly elegant with its solution. It creates generic boot entries for “other” Linux OS’s rather than merely pointing to each distro’s grub.cfg which contains distro specific boot parameters. And it’s the only grub.cfg that’s updated when that distro’s kernels are updated. We have to manually run grub2-mkconfig for those new kernels to show up in the current grub.cfg. A consequence of not having a shared boot among distros. Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
