F19 Final criteria revamp

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Could you take a look and see if it's better now, or
> > still needs improving?
> 
> Criterion reads: The installer must be able to install into free space
> alongside an existing clean Windows installation and install a
> bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora.
> 
> a. Since free space is atypical, this phrasing implies the installer
> doesn't need to be able to resize or resize correctly. Since it's an
> offered scenario in the installer, I think at this point it should be
> required to work and thus incorporated into the criterion.

That is indeed the implication, it's intentional, and I wouldn't want to
change it without input from the anaconda team. Their position is that
resizing is inherently a risky and unpredictable operation that we
cannot guarantee the functionality of, but we should be able to
guarantee what's written in the criterion.

I suppose we could try and come up with a tightly-worded criterion that
the resize mechanism in the installer must not be broken - so it should
'do what it's supposed to do', but if ntfsresize fails for some reason,
that wouldn't be a blocker.

> b. For BIOS installs, the requirement for the bootloader to boot both
> Windows and Fedora is reasonable. It's probably not reasonable, still,
> for UEFI. GRUB2+os-prober really isn't acting as a suitable
> replacement Boot Manager, so the user either needs to use the firmware
> boot manager to choose a bootloader (bootmgr.efi for Windows,
> grubx64.efi for Fedora), or some other boot manager (rEFInd or
> gummiboot).

Well, I see the point, but at the same time, we are finding out that in
the Real World, it's a really bad idea to depend on the EFI boot manager
because it just isn't being presented to the user in a sane way in
enough of the real UEFI implementations. So we might actually want to
keep that requirement, and fix up os-prober (which we're currently
working on).

We'll have to see what pjones' take on that is.

> 
> Clean Windows installation reveal reads in part:
> The expected scenario is a cleanly installed or OEM-deployed Windows
> installation into a single partition. Issues caused by recovery or
> 'system' partitions may not be considered to violate this criterion,
> depending on the specific circumstances. 
> 
> I think those two sentences are unworkable. OEM deployed Windows is multi-partition.
> 
> 
> > In particular, what's the default
> > 'multi-partition' layout of Win7/8?
> 
> I've only recently BIOS installed Windows 7, and it's two partitions
> to an unpartitioned disk. I think for EFI installing Windows 7, it's
> three partitions. For Windows 8 EFI, it's four partitions, so I'll
> guess it's one less for BIOS.

What are the partitions?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net