On Aug 31, 2014, at 11:04 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 18:29 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> Note that we're heavily dependent on upstream code, here - we basically >>> farm the bootloader detection of other OSes out to grub2, which is what >>> other distros do as well. We probably all act fairly similarly here, >>> these days. /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober is what does most of the magic. >> >> This is why I'd draw the line on owning our code. The two cited bugs are congruent with this. >> >>> A more feasible criterion, for me, would be something like 'successful >>> dual boot with default single-disk install of other Fedora versions and >>> other "major" distributions', however we choose to define major exactly. >> >> That may even be too broad. Keeping it narrow to "we're responsible >> for what our code does different than upstream" > > So I'm kinda pulled in two different directions on this - I like the > concept of only owning responsibility for our own code, but on the other > hand I also like *functional* release criteria. So it's a bit of a > tricky circle to square. I'm sure we can figure something out, though! I think the language you have is functional, it just needs a delimiter establishing our purview. Although, I'd suggest the size of the distribution doesn't matter, if we nerf someone's system because of something we're not doing correctly I think we should block on that. Ideally there'd be a spec we could test against, it'd make this a lot more binary (pass/fail). It seems like the distros would have to come up with a spec and agree on it in order to do anything like this, including boot it reliably. http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
