Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

[Tim Flink]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:26:03 -0400 (EDT)
Kamil Paral <kparal at redhat.com> wrote:

> > This conversation was started on Monday in the QA meeting but I
> > forgot to send anything out to the list. We're a bit short on time,
> > so a quick vote would be appreciated
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > 
> > As currently written, the Fedora 20 alpha release requirements [1]
> > state that optical media must boot:
> > 
> >   Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot
> > when written to optical media of an appropriate size (if
> > applicable) and when written to a USB stick with at least one of
> > the officially supported methods.
> > 
> > [1]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot
> > 
> > 
> > The question was whether it was important to have this requirement
> > at alpha when the isos aren't required to be the correct size until
> > beta. As it currently stands, the DVD isos can't be burned to
> > single-sided DVDs.
> >  
> > I propose that we modify that we do two things:
> > 
> >  1) modify the alpha criterion so that it only requires optical
> > media to work if the isos are correctly sized
> > 
> >  2) require booting from optical media at beta when the isos are
> >  required to be properly sized
> > 
> > Proposed change to the "supported media types" section of the
> > release blocking media criterion [1] :
> > 
> >   Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot
> > when written to optical media of an appropriate size (if applicable
> > and the images are correctly sized) and when written to a USB stick
> > with at least one of the officially supported methods.
> > Release-blocking ARM disk images must boot when written to a medium
> > bootable by the platform under test, according to the instructions
> > for the platform under test.
> > 
> > [1]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot
> > 
> > 
> > Proposed change to the beta release blocking image criterion [2]:
> > 
> >   Difference from Alpha:
> >     This criterion differs from the similar Alpha criterion in that
> > it requires optical media to boot and that all supported methods of
> >     writing a Fedora USB stick to work, not just any single one.
> > 
> > [2]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot
> 
> I agree.
> 
> However, there's one corner case to consider. Due to some licensing
> issues we still can't test UEFI in VMs. That means we can't really
> test UEFI boot and installation of Live/DVD/netinst other than
> burning it (or doing a USB conversion, but then we don't test the
> vanilla ISO). If Live/netinst burning is broken for some reason
> (other than being oversize, which is not very likely for these two
> images), we might have troubles verifying that UEFI works. OTOH this
> is a very unlikely situation to occur. I'm mentioning it for
> completeness.

Yeah, we can't test more of the dvd iso than what a dd prepared usb
stick gives us but if the thing is oversized anyways, I don't think
we're losing much.

The way that I interpret this change, netinstall isos are still
required to work @ alpha so long as they fit on a CD. In this case, we
still have usable optical media but we don't require the DVD optical
media to work unless it's properly sized. UEFI testing is still
possible with the netinstall iso and one of the USB methods which is
what I imagine users would be doing as well.

I know you mentioned it for completeness, just expanding on why I don't
think it's a huge issue.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20130919/6a8ba69d/attachment.sig>