That’s a step into the right direction, but needs some corrections: > Am 14.04.2022 um 20:02 schrieb Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > The overall goal of the SIG needs to be to reduce load on existing > bootloader contributors. If it is not doing this, it needs to be > dissolved. The first overall goal is to maintain bios boot and by doing this to expand the existing boot loader contributors. > > ## SIG package maintenance > > If the SIG wants to maintain any BIOS-only packages, that's up to them. > Assuming Brian's change to use grub2 instead of syslinux on legacy > install media ( https://github.com/weldr/lorax/pull/1226 ), the only > other packages in question here would be those to support VESA/fbdev: > > - xorg-x11-drv-vesa > - xorg-x11-drv-fbdev > - xorg-x11-server-Xorg Somewhere else I read these are going to vanish because nothing is still using it? > - syslinux > > ## Fedora deliverables > > Given there is consensus that legacy BIOS is on its way out, we think > Fedora release criteria in this area should be re-evaluated. Not only > does support change from "fully supported" to "best effort", but we > should re-evaluate what is/isn't release blocking, and probably clarify > who owns what parts. The goal is not to touch or modify the release criteria and blocking issues > > ## grub2 > > By default, the Legacy SIG is expected to perform contributions in the > form of triage and PRs. Normal “upstream first” rules apply here (i.e., > send it wherever possible, otherwise send to the downstream rhboot > repo). > > Current grub2 maintainers consider splitting the package (probably grub2 > and grub2-pc, to match current naming, or grub2-legacy or something) > undesirable for a number of reasons. A nonexhaustive list of what would > need to be satisfactorily resolved before a split could considered: > > - There needs to be a primary (and probably secondary) package owner > from the SIG as a prerequisite for a new bugzilla component. > > - Everything in grub2-common, grub2-tools, and grub2-tools-extra is > available on both UEFI and legacy. In most cases, the content is in > fact shared: one file works on both. > > - The new grub2-bios is secondary to the main grub2 package, which means > that the Legacy SIG is responsible for not conflicting with any grub2 > subpackage, and nothing in grub2 can depend on anything in the legacy > package. Both groups cooperate in a way that best fits the goal to keep Fedora able to boot from any of the supported media (for a probably limited time, e.g. 5 years) > > - More generally, problems with the shared core can and will manifest > primarily on one platform. The maintainer of that platform lead the problem solving. > - Feature incompatibilities can and will occur. (Maybe this is okay, or > just the Legacy SIG's responsibility to sort out in all cases.) Feature incompatibilities will get resolved by the lead of the part that is affected most with support from each other. It is the common responsibility to resolve issues. Responsibility ping-pong needs to be avoided. > - Current maintainers do not have much capacity for mentoring, and since > the point is to be rid of legacy, we can't help much at all with > bugfixes. In the initial phase, the "Bios-Boot-Maintainers" receive a detailed briefing to ensure their working preconditions. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
