[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fwd: [Fedora QA] #135: Proposed Test Day - TOPIC How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13?]



On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 11:19 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:48:19AM -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> > 
> > We (fedora-qa) received a request for a test day around anaconda and
> > dual-booting.  I'm not sure if there is interest on the development side
> > for attending and addressing issues found during such an event.  Also, I
> > think we'll probably need to clarify the exposure areas related to
> > dual-boot scenarios.  
> > 
> > So my questions for the list ...
> > 
> >      1. Is there interest in hosting/attending a Fedora 15 test day
> >         around installer dual-boot?
> >      2. What areas of the installer are impacted by the presence of
> >         other operating systems (installing bootloader, partition
> >         detection/selection, partition types (ntfs, xfs...) etc...)?
> 
> Dual booting with other Linux distributions is an issue. I've looked
> into it a bit and one major problem we are going to run into is that
> some distributions are now using grub2 instead of grub. That makes
> building the correct bootloader config much harder.
> 
> In the past I have handled this manually, using a large shared /boot and
> manually editing my entries. I think we can do a better job of
> supporting dual boot with the same bootloader, but really don't have any
> good ideas as to how to handle dual boot with things like Ubuntu.
> 
> Another issue I have seen is the sharing of swap space, which can be a
> problem if hibernate is used.

Sorry Brian, your response got lost in my reader.

Am I correct in summarizing that having such an event would be good,
only if we had a strategy for correctly identifying all other installed
operating systems?

Would a test day be helpful to outline and test dual-boot scenarios and
report on how the Fedora installer handles such situations?  Or would
this be better saved for when dual-boot handling is prioritized?

Thanks,
James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]