On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 15:50 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 21:46 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > 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. > > So are we fine with the Windows and OS X criteria as originally > proposed? Adam, would these be better as beta blockers or as final > blockers? > > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an > existing clean Windows installation and install a bootloader which can > boot into both Windows and Fedora." > > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an > existing clean OS X installation and install a bootloader which can boot > into both OS X and Fedora, OR the installer must prominently warn the > user that he may be unable to boot OS X after installation, allowing the > user to cancel installation and reboot to OS X." > > For the Linux criterion, how about this: > > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside > existing GNU/Linux installations supported by the upstream software for > detecting previously-installed operating systems, and install a > bootloader which can boot into each previous installation." Well, what does 'supported by the upstream software' mean exactly? In what version(s)? Does this mean if grub2's Ubuntu support breaks, we don't have to care about fixing it? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
