On Sun, 2014-12-28 at 18:39 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Adam Williamson < > adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, folks. Talking to cmurf, our resident OS X dual boot expert, > > on #fedora-qa, it's become clear that when we adopted the OS X > > dual boot criterion a few weeks back, we didn't have a good > > understanding of the current state of that code and particularly > > upstream grub's support for booting OS X via UEFI. Basically it > > seems that booting OS X from grub didn't work then and doesn't > > work now and we can't realistically fix it, so we shouldn't have > > put that criterion in place because it's not something we can > > actually viably achieve. > > > > cmurf, roshi, kparal and I voted +1 to removing the criterion on > > that basis. I'm hoping cmurf will be kind enough to look at the > > issue again for the F22 cycle, in consultation with pjones if > > necessary, so we can put a realistic requirement in place before > > we get into F22 Alphas. > > > > If no-one has any objections, we'll make the removal formal ahead > > of tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting for 21. Thanks folks! > > Gist: EFI GRUB still gets these legacy OS X boot options that were > designed to permit CSM-BIOS GRUB to EFI boot OS X. They don't work > from EFI GRUB though. > > As far as I can tell there's no upstream bandwidth/interest in > fixing this; even if it means just suppressing the creation of the > entries, rather than chainloading the Apple bootloader. So I think > the issue is not a QA issue right now, but needs to be bounced back > to desktop@ for the Workstation WG to maybe use some recruitment > influence if they want to see this fixed. > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2014-10/msg00044.html > > A challenge with grub2-mkconfig creating an entry to chainload > Apple's boot.efi, is with recent on-disk format changes in OS X > 10.10 since this last October. It means os-prober will need to > become aware that the boot.efi it's looking for is now on an Apple > Boot [1] partition. I'm not sure what's involved in doing that work > compared to just suppressing the creation of entries that don't work > anyway. Thanks for the info, and sorry for the belated reply. So, where would you say we are WRT the criteria for F22 right now? What would be a reasonable expectation? As of right now, we have these in the F22 Final criteria: Windows dual boot 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. OS X dual boot The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing OS X installation, install and configure a bootloader that will boot Fedora; if the boot menu presents OS X entries, they must boot OS X. Installing Fedora must not inhibit the system's ability to boot OS X from the UEFI boot manager. We do not have any Linux dual boot criterion. Do we need to amend the OS X or Windows criteria to reflect technical reality in any way? Do we want to take another shot at adding a limited Linux dual/multi-boot criterion before we hit Alpha? If so we should revisit the F21-era proposals, agree on a wording, and run it by anaconda-devel-list ASAP. Thanks! -- 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
