On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 17:55 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > How about we save the firmware puke in the face for when there's > meaningful ambiguity involved? Who is the 'we' here? Any conceivable 'we' which might be held to exist in the context of the Fedora development list does not, to me, seem to include 'Lenovo firmware engineers'. Whether you're right or Peter is (my money's on Peter...), this argument seems almost a sideshow: even if you're right and Lenovo's UEFI firmware implementation is a 'bad' one, so what? Manufacturers have been shipping bad firmwares for decades and there are no signs that this is going to stop in the glorious new UEFI era. It has long been established that, in practice, we do our best to work around poor firmware implementations where we can. Even if you win the argument, we'll probably _still_ wind up doing what Peter has proposed in Fedora. Essentially it seems to me that all you're arguing about is whether we call that 'implementing the UEFI spec' or 'working around poor UEFI implementations', which doesn't seem like something it's worth wasting a day's email time arguing about. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
