On 06/13/2013 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
My expectation is the installer doesn't crash, the attempt leaves the disk untouched, and I get
some coherent message indicating this. This expectation is reasonable, but still constitutes
support. I don't know what doesn't support could mean unless
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 12:51 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 06/13/2013 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
My expectation is the installer doesn't crash, the attempt leaves the disk
untouched, and I get some coherent message indicating this. This
expectation is reasonable, but still
On 06/12/2013 02:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 19:17 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/11/2013 12:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Installing to a freespace should be uncontroversial indeed it's the
resize I was referring to and as afaik when you buy a set of hardware
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 18:46 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/12/2013 02:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I can kinda see Johann's point, which is that - since most dual boot
installs will require a resize - if
On 06/11/2013 02:59 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com wrote:
Resize and refitting another OS along with already installed one on the same hardware (
disks ) is not something I see as we should or could be officially supporting
hence
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
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.
Hey folks - so just ahead of the blocker meeting tomorrow, I'm done with
the Final criteria rewrite.
Thanks a lot, I reviewed them and they seem to be fine. Some comments below.
I noticed that the upgrade criterion went missing. But we already have one in
Beta, and it seems to be the same.
On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
here's what Adam sait about that if ntfsresize fails for some reason, that
wouldn't be a blocker. which kinda beats the purpose of the criteria right
( since no factory install of windows comes with available free
On 06/11/2013 12:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Installing to a freespace should be uncontroversial indeed it's the
resize I was referring to and as afaik when you buy a set of hardware
with windows installed it does not come with freespace available
and we should only be supporting dealing
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 08:50 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hey folks - so just ahead of the blocker meeting tomorrow, I'm done with
the Final criteria rewrite.
Thanks a lot, I reviewed them and they seem to be fine. Some comments below.
I noticed that the upgrade criterion went missing. But
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 08:51 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
here's what Adam sait about that if ntfsresize fails for some reason,
that wouldn't be a blocker. which kinda beats the purpose of the criteria
right (
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 19:17 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/11/2013 12:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Installing to a freespace should be uncontroversial indeed it's the
resize I was referring to and as afaik when you buy a set of hardware
with windows installed it does not come with
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 23:34 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
* We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I figured it would make
sense to break
On 06/10/2013 07:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 23:34 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
* We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter )
They don't depend on Windows, they depend on our tools that detect Windows.
nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
them to obtain it legally or
On 06/10/2013 10:08 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter )
They don't depend on Windows, they depend on our tools that detect Windows.
nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it
On 2013-06-10 10:49 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
Quite frankly dual booting is a thing of the past and it should be
dropped from the criteria.
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While dual booting is indeed a
thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just because
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While dual booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because virtualization exists. Virtually all my 30+ usable systems are
multiboot, regardless whether their hardware
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:46 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
That's unrealistic.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that matter )
nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from them to
On 06/10/2013 12:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:46 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
That's unrealistic.
There is nothing unrealistic removing it from the criteria but still
retain the test case(s) like we do for
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@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
On 2013-06-10 12:04 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While dual booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because virtualization exists. Virtually all my 30+ usable
On 06/10/2013 02:38 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 12:04 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
On 06/10/2013 11:56 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
Yet another Fedora way to alienate users. While dual booting is
indeed a thing of the '80's, multibooting isn't going away just
because
It absolutely should block the release as there's no way to fix it after the
fact. Dropping the requirement for sane multiboot behavior isn't a good idea.
(Sane being, it's possible and does no harm to the existing system.)
Chris Murphy
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Cristian Sava wrote:
After all, why to get rid of this way of dual boot capability for non
UEFI systems, for non encrypted dual boot? What is the big advantage to not
have that?
Because anaconda devs don't want to support what grub devs recommend against. I
think the former is reasonable. Some
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is why you are multi booting them?
No.
I really don't understand the question or why you are asking it.
and why
On 06/10/2013 03:46 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is why you are multi booting them?
No.
I really don't understand the
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 15:58 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
And what I'm saying we should not blocking the release for that.
We are first and foremost shipping our distribution to be used as
primary OS on our users HW just like any other OS does.
NO, you have not valid reasons to
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:38 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@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
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter ) nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
them to obtain it legally or illegally just so
On 2013-06-10 15:58 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
On 06/10/2013 03:46 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 14:57 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
And in what are you using those 30+ usable system
They are all in the same building.
So being in the same building is why
On 06/10/2013 04:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter ) nor can we expect all users to own a windows or require it from
them
On 06/10/2013 04:48 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Johann. DROP IT. Seriously. You are picking a fight just for the sake
of a fight. I am sick and tired of you doing this every couple of
months. If you can not express yourself in a better less You are an
idiot because you disagree with
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only matters that it works for those who use it as a sole OS.
Yes that our primary focus should be the only
On 2013-06-10 17:51 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only matters that it works for those who use it as a
On 06/10/2013 06:09 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-06-10 17:51 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
On 06/10/2013 04:53 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
So what you're saying is whether Fedora is satisfactory as a testing
tool or secondary OS needn't be determined prior to release; that it
only
On 06/10/2013 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
still needs improving? Thanks. In particular, what's the default
'multi-partition' layout of Win7/8? I don't think I've seen a stock
install of either (I still use an old copy of XP for Windows testing,
here.)
I recently had the fun of installing
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 17:33 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 06/10/2013 04:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 08:46 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We should just drop that entirely.
Our criteria should not depend on windows ( or any other OS for that
matter
On 06/10/2013 07:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, let me put it more baldly: up till now I can't recall a single
person agreeing with you that we should stop blocking on basic
multiboot-alongside-a-simple-Windows-install. Not a single person. I
agree we have a very small sample size on this
On 2013-06-10 18:16 (GMT) Jóhann B. Guðmundsson composed:
Primary as in we should test this but not block the release for it not
working
The dangerous not working mode is screwing up the target so what was
functional there is no longer. Do you remember as well as I Disk Druid's
capacity for
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:10:19 +
From: johan...@gmail.com
To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: F19 Final criteria revamp
On 06/10/2013 07:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, let me put it more baldly: up till now I can't recall a single
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Resize and refitting another OS along with already installed one on the same
hardware ( disks ) is not something I see as we should or could be
officially supporting hence we should not be blocking our release for
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
* We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I figured it would make
sense to break out an explicit bootloader criterion: The installer must
Hey folks - so just ahead of the blocker meeting tomorrow, I'm done with
the Final criteria rewrite.
For now I've put it in a 'sandbox' space because I did make a few
changes on-the-fly and they should get reviewed before we replace the
old page, but if people think it's a good idea, we can use
44 matches
Mail list logo
