Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work

Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro at gnome.org
Sat Aug 16 12:36:59 UTC 2014


On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 11:15 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> [1] Summary of Fedora bootloading bugs:
> 
> BIOS, preexisting Windows: reliably has a working boot entry created.
> For other combinations all bets are off:
> 
> BIOS or UEFI, preexisting Linux using LVM: boot entries not created
> because preexisting OS's LV's aren't activated by the installer, so
> os-prober/grub2-mkconfig don't find the preexisting OS.  Two year old
> bug, finger pointing, no agreement on who should fix it.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236
> 
> UEFI, preexisting Windows:, boot entry either not created for Windows
> or it doesn't work. 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986731  ## Year old bug.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704  ## This bug was
> rejected as an F20 blocker on the basis that the release criteria for
> Windows only applies to BIOS.
> 
> UEFI, preexisting Linux no-LVM: boot entry does not work. This is a
> Fedora GRUB specific bug, over a year old, was rejected for freeze
> exception so it stands to reason it would have been rejected as a
> blocker as well.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828
> 
> UEFI, preexisting OS X: boot entries don't work, have never worked for
> me in 3+ years. Two 18 month old bugs.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904668  ## Kernel panic
> might now be fixed by upstream, but upstream's solution is flaky and
> prone to breakage every time Apple makes a kernel change. Upstream
> insists on using their own bootloader rather than Apple's for unknown
> reasons.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893179 ## Described fix by
> adding GRUB xnu modules to grubx64.efi has not been implemented.
> Secondary problem is that there are two superfluous entries that don't
> work due to confusion resulting from Fedora's mactel-boot support
> (os-prober thinks the Fedora boot entries are an OS X installation).

Hi,

Am I alone in thinking we should block final on all of these? We're
delayed so much already that it seems like it might be best to take care
of these once and for all. Especially if we are going to pretend that
Fedora is a good alternative to Mac; we should not pretend that if we
cannot boot on Macs.

A nonfunctional installer is a really big problem. At the worst, the
installer should be able to detect these situations in advance and warn
the user.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20140816/b9385aba/attachment.sig>


More information about the server mailing list