Jiri Konecny <jkonecny@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Dne 16. 05. 22 v 17:55 Chris Murphy napsal(a): > >> I inserted a comment in the PR, >> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4104#issuecomment-1127824824 >> >> On second thought it's probably better discussed here. I'm generally >> inclined to support less than more by combining things as much as >> possible. So I'm wondering about a disklabel and bootloader policy >> that in effect is GPT+BIOSBoot+EFI System partitions, with both >> bootloaders configured at installation time no matter the firmware >> type during installation. There's already one consumer for this, >> Fedora Cloud edition images (both qcow2 and raw). >> >> Maybe it doesn't really simplify anything for the non-cloud case? >> We'd need to boot systems in BIOS, do an installation, test the >> installation in BIOS and UEFI mode boot. And boot systems in UEFI, do >> an installation, and test the installation in BIOS and UEFI boot. We >> do this already but I wonder if it's overall less complex for >> Anaconda going forward? And reduces the chance of installation >> failure or the boot following installation? > > Hi Chris, > > honestly, it looks to me like a hack which is required for the cloud > images but shouldn't be used out of that. I don't like the solution > much, it makes everything much more complicated especially for the > "mbr/bios" and similar formats. I'm more inclined for the simplified > current solution. > > Also I'm thinking if it would be really that helpful. Users usually > don't change on the installed system between UEFI and BIOS boot, do they? Right. Even in cloud images, while one has the capability to do either initially, going back and forth isn't normal. (Certainly it's not something we test during development.) While I don't want to spread FUD, I think this has been tried in the past and didn't work well. That doesn't mean don't do it, of course, just that it'd need to be understood why it didn't work. I don't expect anyone wants to support migrations UEFI to legacy, so this really is about legacy to UEFI. While I know that others on CC may not agree, my personal opinion is that hardware that can't do UEFI by default at this point is a corner case - which means I'm unconvinced that the benefits of enabling such in new installs is worth the complexity. > Adding bootloader dev for the heads-up about this change and the > discussion. Cheers. I expect we'll defer to whatever decision anaconda makes here. Be well, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel mailing list -- anaconda-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to anaconda-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/anaconda-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
