On Aug 31, 2014, at 11:04 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> 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