On 05/22/14 03:46, Jordan Justen wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 AM, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 04:54 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> (Without enabling the CSM in an OVMF build, the option to legacy-boot is >>> lost of course as well, but I expressly don't desire that option. Just >>> boot legacy OSes with pure SeaBIOS; it's easy to choose your firmware in >>> a virtual machine.) >> >> I don't think I agree that it's easy to choose your firmware. If I'm >> using virt-manager/libvirt under Fedora, how do I do it? I suppose it'd >> be implicit in my choice of operating system? So I might be expected to >> know that selecting "Fedora 20" will use legacy BIOS while "Fedora 21" >> will magically switch me over to UEFI, according to criteria that are >> entirely opaque to me? And if I'm using Ubuntu or something else, the >> choices there might be entirely different? >> >> Or were you really intending the tools to give the user an explicit >> choice of legacy vs. UEFI rather than depending on the OS? That would >> kind of suck too. >> >> Really, I think we should make CSM work and keep it working, then it's a >> no-brainer for users because things Just Work™. Never underestimate the >> collective stupidity of end-users. If we can make it Just Work™, >> especially since we're so close already, then I think we should. >> >> Which is why I spent the time to enable CSM in the first place, of >> course. Not to mention the fact that having OVMF+CSM as a default >> firmware will serve to accelerate adoption of UEFI in virtual machines, >> and that gives people a *really* easy playground to get involved in EDK2 >> source code; fixing bugs and making improvements. > > Of course, the 'non-free' (non-OSI) FAT driver license will also block > any consideration of OVMF as 'the default' firmware for many people.
Good point! Some distros already ship OVMF (and the number will only grow), but they very consciously put OVMF in an appropriate "section" of the distro. Eg. Debian places it in "non-free": https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ovmf Ubuntu ships it in "multiverse" (Unsupported, Non-free software): http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=ovmf They probably made a mistake in 13.04 -- see "universe", Unsupported, Free software -- but they must have noticed and corrected it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29#Package_classification_and_support See also Debian bug <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745698> -- packages in "main" cannot Recommend (let alone Depend-on) packages in "non-free", hence the downgrade to Suggests. Fedora won't ship, at all, an OVMF build that includes FatBinPkg (and of course removing FatBinPkg would cripple the firmware). For a time it looked like Copr <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Copr> would allow hosting OVMF builds for Fedora, but ultimately that turned out a "no" too. It might land in RPMFusion at some point. This separation probably prevents OVMF (incl. FatBinPkg) from being considered the default VM firmware in each of these distros. Thanks Laszlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
