Re: Draft bootloader selection test cases
On Aug 2, 2013, at 7:20 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
he feedback. I didn't want to get into too much detail in
the test case, because things can be fairly different on different
arches, BIOS vs. UEFI etc. But it might be a good idea to include some
examples for the most common cases, I guess.
Isn't "no bootloader" meaningless on UEFI? It would mean that anaconda would
have to not install the grub-efi or shim packages; grub-install isn't called in UEFI,
the grubx64.efi bootloader file (and other files) are installed in the course of
installing shim and grub. I could be mistaken but my vague recollection is that for F18
the no bootloader option in the installer for UEFI hardware was considered a bug, which
was fixed in F19. I don't think the option exists on UEFI.
As for how to verify the lack of a bootloader, that's not what we want. We'd have
to capture the first 440 bytes of LBA 0 before and after installation, and compare - if
the "don't install bootloader" option works, they should be the same. That
bootstrap region is almost certainly not empty, even parted drops some small bit of code
in there when an MBR is created; and of course it's filled if the syslinux mbr.bin has
been installed there, or the Windows boot loader.
dd if=/dev/sdX bs=440 count=1 | hexdump -C
I'm not sure that actually _is_ suboptimal, because if you're not
installing a bootloader, there's really nothing at all the installer
does to render the installation 'bootable'; there's nothing to test. It
just installs the packages. It's up to the user to configure boot. So
I'm not sure there's something it makes any sense to test, at that
point.
It could be argued the test is to make certain the first 440 bytes of LBA 0 haven't
been modified. That's really the ultimate metric as far as I can tell. It doesn't
matter if anything else is installed.
Chris Murphy