Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 11:15 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This is it. I'm uncertain how they can be requirements without a mandate from the Workstation WG or FESCo. The bugs aren't new [1], they vary from 1-3 years old, and none made it to either freeze exception or release blocker status expressly because there's no applicable release criteria. Hence request to clarify the scope of the tech spec "preserve existing" language.

They're indeed not requirements from the WG or from FESCO, just
requirements from me, so if they hold no weight for you, that's totally
fine. (I mentioned my response was my own opinion; I should also clarify
that I'm not a WG member.) I'm not sure if you'll get more responses.

> [1] Summary of Fedora bootloading bugs:
> 
> BIOS, preexisting Windows: reliably has a working boot entry created. For other combinations all bets are off:

Yeah, this is what I suspected.

Thanks for putting all the bugs together in one place. Each of the bugs
you mention OUGHT to be a beta blocker, but this isn't a perfect
world....

> 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.

This Windows one is most serious by far. I'd interpret this as a
violation of the guideline you quoted: "One aspect of storage
configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups
(preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations)."

Adam, I see in that bug your comment: "Discussed at 2013-11-13 blocker
review meeting -
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2013-11-13/f20-final-blocker-review-1.2013-11-13-17.01.log.txt . We agreed to amend the criterion to specify it covers the BIOS case only, and consequently this bug is rejected as a blocker."

I think this should be reconsidered. I can't figure out how to get to
setup or a boot menu on my father's new laptop; if I were foolish enough
to install Fedora on it, we'd never get back to Windows again.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20140629/1e6a62e8/attachment.sig>