On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 12:08 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we're missing something fundamental here. If a > > > > program/service etc. requires specific hardware to work > > > > and it can't gracefully handle situations where that hardware is not > > > > present - it shouldn't be a default. > > > > > > > > The way to handle this (and other similar situations) is to take away > > > > the default status until it can handle > > > > situations where the hardware doesn't exist. This is systems > > > > programming 101 - and frankly I am a > > > > bit surprised it's a matter of debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one on this list is disagreeing that the defaults should not degrade > > > the system. I *do* think that your response is an overreaction: just > > > because software may have bugs on your hardware doesn't mean that it should > > > be turned off entirely. If it's causing problems for a small subset of > > > users, they can be manually disabled. > > > > > > These services provide CONSIDERABLE benefit on the hardware that supports > > > it. Removing that as a default for those systems would be a significant > > > regression. That's not an acceptable solution. > > > > > > Most of the people on this thread seem to agree: we can conditionalize > > > the defaults so it is either skipped or at least does not mark the service > > > as "failed" if the necessary hardware is not present. People are already > > > working on doing this. > > > > > > > Stephen, I'm not disputing the benefit - and I very much appreciate the > > fact that people are working to conditionalize the defaults. What I do > > disagree with is your characterization that this is a bug. > > It is working as it was designed - and the design is faulty - and it's > > pervasive. I've encountered THREE different processes that aren't properly > > conditionalized. That's definitely not a bug - that's a systemic issue. > > Yes, AMD processors are not as popular as Intel, but they do exist in > > considerable numbers and most definitely should be > > considered when things are implemented as defaults; additionally... > > obviously... not everybody uses SecureBoot. > > My comment regarding taking away default status was in regards to this > > lingering for years. > > I personally don't believe that is acceptable. If one can't figure out > > how to fix things like this in a timely manner, then there is a problem. > > > > > > Well, there was also a failure of escalation path here. If this was going > on for years without a resolution, why wasn't it raised on this list or to > FESCo a long time ago? Individual maintainers have their own priorities and > time constraints and don't always address every bug that comes their way. > > However, had it risen up the chain, it's possible a group like FESCo might > take note and set down some rules/requirements. As it is, I think it's > probably time right now to move this to a FESCo ticket and see what we can > do about it. Gerald, if you feel strongly about this issue, please file it. Note we already have a release criterion related to this: "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present." That lets out the rngd and Intel vs. AMD cases, I guess - it is specifically written to do so, after we decided once that we didn't want to block the release on the rngd case or one like it - but it would cover the Secure Boot case at least. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PCKI2JZ54TWHRMFTQAIQP333K5W7MPUQ/
