Windows Dual Boot, with Secure Boot, release criteria

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Thu Jan 15 22:16:32 UTC 2015

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad at> wrote:
>> So yes, secure boot not working should be a release blocker.
> Ok so a general purpose "Fedora should boot when UEFI Secure Boot is
> enabled" criterion needs to be created. Any suggestion on what release
> this should block? beta? final? alpha?

At this point, probably Beta blocker.  The sooner it's tested the better though.

>> Windows failing to boot from grub with secure boot enabled is a different
>> story. If users can pick Windows in their firmware's boot device menu and it
>> boots and grub is simply failing to chainload it, then it's much less
>> critical of an issue, so I'm not sure if it should be a blocker, but it's
>> still a thing we probably want to work too, because it not working does hurt
>> the dual-boot user experience a bit.
> Some manufacturers are not enabling USB or the keyboard at firmware
> initialization time in order to get faster boots. So it's not
> guaranteed the user can get to the firmware's built-in boot manager.
> In such a case, the user would need to boot Fedora (since they have no
> choice), and then use efibootmgr to change the BootNext NVRAM variable
> (or they can change BootOrder). So that'd need some better
> documentation probably.

Or a tool.  Ideally, we'd just fix the bugs.


More information about the desktop mailing list