F19 Final criteria revamp

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 06/11/2013 02:59 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson<johannbg at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >
>> >Resize and refitting another OS along with already installed one on the same hardware ( disks ) is not something I see as we should or could be "officially" supporting hence we should not be blocking our release for that.
> Certainly installing to free space should be uncontroversial. I don't care to understand the idea that user choice should only apply to FOSS. You either believe in user choice or you don't, it is a fairly binary position regardless of the software's license. The installer supports it, and considering the damage that could be done is in the category of data loss, yes it needs to have a suitable release blocking criterion.
>
>

Installing to a freespace should be uncontroversial indeed it's the 
resize I was referring to and as afaik when you buy a set of hardware 
with windows installed it does not come with "freespace" available
and we should only be "supporting" dealing with factory defaults but as 
Samuel points out earlier in the thread

"
I recently had the "fun" of installing Fedora beside Windows 7 on more 
than 10 different laptops.  (This was for a class where the students 
were required to provide their own laptops.)  The number of Windows 
partitions varied from 2 to 4.  The 4 partition case required me to 
delete one of them because they were all primary partitions!  Sorry, I 
don't remember what the contents were on the partitions.  My guess of 
the options was boot, main OS, user data, system (BIOS config?), 
recovery.  There was one Windows 8 laptop which was easier because it 
used GPT so I didn't have to mess with the partitions other than 
resizing them. "

Which means today you are no longer dealing with a single partition ( 
atleast a rescue partition then 1 -3 windows partitions if you are using 
laptops ) so the user has to manually resize to fit Fedora along side it 
and here's what Adam sait about that " if ntfsresize fails for some 
reason, that wouldn't be a blocker." which kinda  beats the purpose of 
the criteria right ( since no factory install of windows comes with 
available free space so the user always has to resize before or during 
the installation phaze )

"
That is indeed the implication, it's intentional, and I wouldn't want to 
change it without input from the anaconda team. Their position is that 
resizing is inherently a risky and unpredictable operation that we 
cannot guarantee the functionality of, but we should be able to 
guarantee what's written in the criterion. I suppose we could try and 
come up with a tightly-worded criterion that the resize mechanism in the 
installer must not be broken - so it should 'do what it's supposed to 
do', but if ntfsresize fails for some reason, that wouldn't be a blocker."

On top of that installer needs to support adding an entry for Fedora to 
the primary OS ( XP/Vista/Windows7/Windows8 ) already existing 
bootloader ( if the users chooses not to install grub but chooses using 
the windows bootloader in this case but the same should be apply to grub 
if installing alongside another linux distribution as in dualbooting 
ubuntu and fedora for example ) or adding a entry for the primary OS to 
grub ( if the user chose to install it ) to grub.

And while we cant fully commit to "supporting" dual or multi booting 
then we should not have that in our criteria.

JBG