Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-20 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 06:43 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > The rewrite sounds good to me. Just one possible improvement. I work > > almost exclusively with VM for testing so iso size doesn't matter. > > Should it be an alpha requirement that the isos we're talking about > > boot and install in the

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/19/2013 03:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> Given the current state of the art, all known UEFI implementations for >> VMs require the use of a FAT driver whose license forbids redistribution >> for general purpose use, which means Fedora ca

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Bill Nottingham
Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said: > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > > Given the current state of the art, all known UEFI implementations for > > VMs require the use of a FAT driver whose license forbids redistribution > > for general purpose use, which means Fe

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sep 19, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Not speaking to any issues of legality or non-legality, but fairly sure he's > referring to the FAT driver in the EFI bios itself, which would have to be > distributed in the EFI bios used by QEMU/KVM for virtual systems. It's not > the lin

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sep 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I understand that distinction but as there is a FAT driver in the linux > kernel distributed with Fedora, I don't see why it's suddenly a problem for > an EFI virtual firmware that needs a FAT driver to ship with Fedora. > > Also, Virtualbo

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > Given the current state of the art, all known UEFI implementations for > VMs require the use of a FAT driver whose license forbids redistribution > for general purpose use, which means Fedora cannot ship it. I don't understand this. First, t

Re: Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/19/2013 06:53 AM, Greg Woodbury wrote: >>> >>> However, there's one corner case to consider. Due to some licensing >>> issues we still can't test UEFI in VMs. > Am I being dense, or missing something? > What "licensing issues"? > > I have a new Intel "Haswell" (i5-4430/z87) achitecture mach

Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Greg Woodbury
On 09/19/2013 06:49 AM, Tim Flink wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Kamil Paral wrote: 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 requir

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Tim Flink
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:23:04 -0400 Bob Lightfoot wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/19/2013 05:26 AM, Kamil Paral 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 > >> ti

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Tim Flink
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Kamil Paral 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 Fed

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Kamil Paral
> The rewrite sounds good to me. Just one possible improvement. I work > almost exclusively with VM for testing so iso size doesn't matter. > Should it be an alpha requirement that the isos we're talking about > boot and install in the VM environment which has no care for size? I think that shou

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Bob Lightfoot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2013 05:26 AM, Kamil Paral 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 curren

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Kamil Paral
> 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: >

Re: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Mike R
+1 for the revision. // Mike -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements

2013-09-19 Thread Tim Flink
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