Re: Release criteria proposal: except BitLocker-enabled installs from Windows
dual-boot criterion bootloader requirement
by Chris Murphy
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:45 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> The only way to get the TPM state to match not using a particular loader
> is to not use a loader - i.e., have grub2 (or efibootmgr in Fedora
> userspace) set EFI BootNext and reboot the machine.
I know systemd-boot does implement bootnext, can modify it in NVRAM. But last I checked GRUB can't.
I've asked upstream GRUB about supporting bootnext and a reboot, but the discussion didn't go anywhere. Is there any interest or work happening to make this possible? Because if not, then it seems the only way forward is efibootmgr, and see if desktops want to add a GUI wrapper around it.
--
Chris Murphy
1 year, 7 months
Re: Release criteria proposal: except BitLocker-enabled installs
from Windows dual-boot criterion bootloader requirement
by Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 16:45 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
>
> > For background here, see:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049849
> >
> > right now, when installing Fedora alongside a Windows install with
> > BitLocker enabled, trying to boot Windows from the Fedora boot menu
> > does not work.
> >
> > We waived the bug as a blocker for Fedora 36 on the basis upstream did
> > not consider it fixable within the F36 timeframe. We agreed that if
> > upstream still couldn't get this fixed for F37, we'd consider revising
> > the criteria.
> >
> > Well, we're approaching F37 Final and the bug is still open, and
> > there's no appreciable movement upstream, so I'm proposing the criteria
> > change. I propose we change this:
> >
> > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
> > existing clean Windows installation and install a bootloader which can
> > boot into both Windows and Fedora."
> >
> > to say:
> >
> > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
> > existing clean Windows installation. As long as the Windows
> > installation does not have BitLocker enabled, the installer must also
> > install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora."
>
> (Fedora grub2 maintainer hat on)
>
> I'm fine with the proposed change. I'm also fine with the original
> text.
>
> During boot, certain actions are taken that are recorded in the TPM.
> These include, for instance, any loaders that are run - like grub2. The
> result is that if you load Windows from grub2 rather than the EFI
> firmware, the TPM state will be different. Bitlocker cares about this
> TPM state.
>
> So: if you install Windows and set up Bitlocker booting through grub, it
> will continue to work through grub. If you install Windows outside grub
> (or it's pre-provisioned), it will continue to work outside grub. If
> you want to move from not using grub to using grub, then Bitlocker needs
> to be reestablished with the new TPM values.
>
> It is the opinion of the grub2 maintainers that this constitutes being
> able to boot both Windows and Fedora today. However, we also understand
> that not everyone agrees with this, as evidenced by the existence of the
> bug and this thread about changing RC.
Practically speaking, the way this is "expected" to work is, you get a
system with Windows pre-installed, then you install Fedora, and Fedora
makes it so you can boot both Fedora and Windows. This is the
expectation that's built up around how things ought to work, and it's
what the existing criterion is trying to express.
In general, people do not start out with Linux installed and then
install Windows, this just isn't really a thing that happens a lot.
The word 'you' in your text is kinda doing a lot of heavy lifting. I
would say that what we (we-as-in-Fedora) are concerned with here are
users who do not want to know or care about the details of grub or UEFI
or Windows or BitLocker. The user does not really "want" to "move from
not using grub to using grub". The user wants to move from only having
Windows to having both Windows and Linux. That's the high-level goal
here. grub is an implementation detail (chosen by "us", Fedora, not by
the user).
> The only way to get the TPM state to match not using a particular loader
> is to not use a loader - i.e., have grub2 (or efibootmgr in Fedora
> userspace) set EFI BootNext and reboot the machine. But generally, if
> users want to be booting Windows through grub, we recommend they
> configure Bitlocker against those PCR values instead.
Is there a good place to point folks who are interested in the
technical details here for documentation?
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net
1 year, 7 months
[f37] (hint) your fstab has been modified, but systemd still uses...
by Felix Miata
# mountsrv
mount: (hint) your fstab has been modified, but systemd still uses
the old version; use 'systemctl daemon-reload' to reload.
mount: (hint) your fstab has been modified, but systemd still uses
the old version; use 'systemctl daemon-reload' to reload.
mount: (hint) your fstab has been modified, but systemd still uses
the old version; use 'systemctl daemon-reload' to reload.
mount: (hint) your fstab has been modified, but systemd still uses
the old version; use 'systemctl daemon-reload' to reload.
mountsrv is a shell alias to mount 4 noauto nfs mounts that I have used in fstabs
since around when nfs V4 went mainstream. Nothing in fstab has been changed WRT
nfs mounts. The only changes to fstab are: 1-because of cloning 36 so that the
clone could be upgraded to 37 while keeping 36 intact, with only change being
related to the / filesystem's new device name, UUID and LABEL post-cloning; and
2-an extra mount during system-upgrade process, for a filesystem mounted to
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade to prevent exhaustion of freespace by downloading all
before installing any.
Running systemctl daemon-reload doesn't change anything apparent, or stop the
"hints" from recurring after each reboot. Is this a bug? BZ search for
"daemon-reload" turned up nothing looking similar. Is there some required new
fstab construct I haven't heard about?
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata
1 year, 7 months
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora Linux 37 Beta Release Announcement
by Peter Robinson
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:04 PM Tomas Hrcka <thrcka(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Fedora Linux 37 Beta Released
> ------------------------------------------
>
> The Fedora Project is pleased to announce the immediate availability
> of Fedora Linux 37 Beta, the next step towards our planned Fedora Linux 37 release
> at the end of October.
>
> Download the prerelease from our Get Fedora site:
> * Get Fedora 37 Beta Workstation: https://getfedora.org/workstation/download/
> * Get Fedora 37 Beta Server: https://getfedora.org/server/download/
> * Get Fedora 37 IoT: https://getfedora.org/iot/download/
>
> Or, check out one of our popular variants, including KDE Plasma, Xfce,
> and other desktop environments, as well as images for ARM devices:
>
> * Get Fedora 37 Beta Spins: https://spins.fedoraproject.org/prerelease
> * Get Fedora 37 Beta Labs: https://labs.fedoraproject.org/prerelease
> * Get Fedora 37 Beta ARM: https://arm.fedoraproject.org/prerelease
Please drop the arm.fp.o links, they're for ARMv7 which is retired
with F-37, all the aarch64 pieces are part of the main getfedora.org
site.
> ## Beta Release Highlights
>
> # Gnome 43
> # Retire ARMv7
> # Python 3.11, Perl 5.36, Golang 1.19
> # RPM content is now signed with IMA signatures
>
> For more details about the release, read the full announcement at
>
> * https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-37-beta/
>
> or look for the prerelease pages in the download sections at
>
> * https://getfedora.org/
>
> Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
> missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact
> the Fedora QA team via the test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list or
> in #fedora-qa on Libera Chat or the #qa:fedoraproject.org Matrix room.
>
> Regards,
> Tomas Hrcka, Fedora Release Engineering.
> _______________________________________________
> test-announce mailing list -- test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedorap...
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
1 year, 7 months
Fedora-MATE_Compiz-Live-x86_64-37_Beta-1.5.iso ... Does NOT boot.
by Andre Gompel
Fedora-MATE_Compiz-Live-x86_64-37_Beta-1.5.iso Does NOT boot.
sh256sum says it is "OK"
But it does not boot, says methinks like : "file /sbin.sysctl file is missing.
Bad ISO it seems.
I use a Ventoy formatted USB drive, where other ISO's including Fedora 36 boot OK
It may be a bad build.
I have not tried any other F37 Beta, only this one.
AG
1 year, 7 months
Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension
install/remove to work
by Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 09:00 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I would make the criterion a little more generic than that. E.g. we
> don't want to block Fedora release if https://extensions.gnome.org/
> goes down due to a server problem, or if GNOME decides to change the
> way extension installation works.
For the first part, we can add a footnote clarifying that we expect the
site to be working. For the second, if that happens, we can just change
the criterion. It's only text.
I'm not sure I can write it any more generically without losing all
meaning or unexpectedly broadening the scope. For instance if we just
say it must be possible to install extensions, what does that *mean*?
Is it OK if you can only do it by hacking around with gsettings values
manually? Or on the other end of the scale, does it require that *any
possible method* of installing extensions works? That just feels too
vague to me.
Do you have a suggestion for improved wording?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net
1 year, 7 months
Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension
install/remove to work
by Adam Williamson
Hey folks!
So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868
it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
37, you can't go to https://extensions.gnome.org and install
extensions.
We agreed that it doesn't violate any existing release criteria, but to
me, this is actually kind of a significant problem. Anecdotally, I get
the impression that a lot of our Workstation users do use extensions,
and not being able to easily install them on a fresh install would be a
big problem for them, and make us look pretty bad.
We have a handful of extensions packaged, though I'm not sure how well
they're kept up to date. Aside from those, I don't know of any other
really practical way for regular users to install extensions besides
https://extensions.gnome.org . Is there one?
Assuming for now that there isn't, I'm gonna propose this as a Final
release criterion to see how people feel about it, to come after
"Default panel functionality":
#####
=== GNOME extensions ===
On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
browser, after installing the required browser extension.
#####
Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
Desktop folks, do you consider it "supportable"?
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net
1 year, 7 months
2022-09-12 - Fedora QA Meeting - Minutes
by Adam Williamson
==================================
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting
==================================
Meeting started by adamw at 15:00:04 UTC. The full logs are available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-09-12/fedora-qa.202...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (adamw, 15:00:12)
* Previous meeting follow-up (adamw, 15:07:56)
* no action items from previous meeting (adamw, 15:08:11)
* Fedora 37 Beta check-in and final steps (adamw, 15:13:34)
* ACTION: adamw to work on F37 Beta common issues (adamw, 15:19:32)
* LINK: https://getfedora.org/en/iot/download/ (SumantroMukherje,
15:38:48)
* Fedora CoreOS release criteria / test case revisions (adamw,
15:45:57)
* adamw, sumantro and dustymabe are working on release criteria and
test coverage for CoreOS at
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1239 (adamw,
15:58:21)
* Test Day / community event status (adamw, 15:58:31)
* GNOME and i18n test weeks are ongoing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2022-09-07_Fedora_37_GNOME_43_Final
, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2022-09-06_I18N_Test_Day
(adamw, 16:11:38)
* IoT test week is next week: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/710
(adamw, 16:12:14)
* upgrade, virt, and GNOME apps test events are all upcoming (adamw,
16:12:28)
* Open floor (adamw, 16:12:30)
Meeting ended at 16:21:12 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* adamw to work on F37 Beta common issues
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* adamw
* adamw to work on F37 Beta common issues
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (82)
* kparal (35)
* SumantroMukherje (14)
* zodbot (11)
* coremodule (11)
* lruzicka (11)
* nirik (4)
* bcotton (3)
* AhmedA (2)
* pboy (1)
* tflink[m] (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4
.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net
1 year, 7 months
