On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> So yes, secure boot not working should be a release blocker. > > Ok so a general purpose "Fedora should boot when UEFI Secure Boot is > enabled" criterion needs to be created. Any suggestion on what release > this should block? beta? final? alpha? At this point, probably Beta blocker. The sooner it's tested the better though. >> Windows failing to boot from grub with secure boot enabled is a different >> story. If users can pick Windows in their firmware's boot device menu and it >> boots and grub is simply failing to chainload it, then it's much less >> critical of an issue, so I'm not sure if it should be a blocker, but it's >> still a thing we probably want to work too, because it not working does hurt >> the dual-boot user experience a bit. > > Some manufacturers are not enabling USB or the keyboard at firmware > initialization time in order to get faster boots. So it's not > guaranteed the user can get to the firmware's built-in boot manager. > In such a case, the user would need to boot Fedora (since they have no > choice), and then use efibootmgr to change the BootNext NVRAM variable > (or they can change BootOrder). So that'd need some better > documentation probably. Or a tool. Ideally, we'd just fix the bugs. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop