On 01/21/16 12:42, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 21.01.2016 14:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I gave up on this -- did give it my best. It turns out
>> that the machine that I thought supported UEFI boot does not. I'll
>> keep an eye out for such a machine and test this in future.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 02:42:02PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 21.01.2016 14:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I gave up on this -- did give it my best. It turns out
> > that the machine that I thought supported UEFI boot does not. I'll
> > keep an eye out for such a machine and
21.01.2016 14:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I'm afraid I gave up on this -- did give it my best. It turns out
> that the machine that I thought supported UEFI boot does not. I'll
> keep an eye out for such a machine and test this in future.
BTW, why do you guys refer to UEFI boot all the time
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:35:21PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 01/14/16 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:06:05PM +0300, Alex wrote:
> >> Richard, I just posted HW test results to
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758.
> >> Should I do it here in
On 15/01/16 19:07, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:35:21PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 01/14/16 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:06:05PM +0300, Alex wrote:
Richard, I just posted HW test results to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:35:21PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 01/14/16 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:06:05PM +0300, Alex wrote:
> >> Richard, I just posted HW test results to
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758.
> >> Should I do it here in
On 01/14/16 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:06:05PM +0300, Alex wrote:
>> Richard, I just posted HW test results to
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758.
>> Should I do it here instead?
>
> I saw that. Testing a virt-p2v conversion is a lot more inv
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:06:05PM +0300, Alex wrote:
> Richard, I just posted HW test results to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758.
> Should I do it here instead?
I saw that. Testing a virt-p2v conversion is a lot more involved. It
would involve something like this:
(1) Ins
Richard, I just posted HW test results to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758.
Should I do it here instead?
I'm not a RHEL customer, but I am semi-responsible for raising this fuss :)
*From:* Richard W.m. J
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:36:53AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> This matters mostly for Win7 installations that were converted with p2v.
> Testing feedback from such environments would be appreciated.
Just to note first that no RHEL customer has ever reported this bug to
us.
To test this is going
Background:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248758
- http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/358854
- https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/issues/5
This matters mostly for Win7 installations that were converted with p2v.
Testing feedback from such environments would be apprec
11 matches
Mail list logo