Re: State "bios" firmware support for OSes
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > We recently landed EFI support in GNOME Boxes where we create guests > > with "firmware = efi" by default when libosinfo reports that the OS > > supports it. This has worked great except for the regression with > > snapshots. Long story short, internal snapshots won't work with EFI, > > external snapshots won't allow our users to revert their domain to a > > certain snapshot. > > > > For this reason, the Boxes designers and I concluded that the best > > approach for us here would be to only create EFI guests for OSes that > > REQUIRE it. If an OS can still boot with the legacy "bios" we should > > go for it, since it maintains our Snapshot management functionality. > > > > The reason I am emailing libosinfo about this is to assess whether you > > folk would be open to having me adding > type="bios"/> to the OSes that support it (some of them already state > > support for EFI). > > > > Since the API returns a list of Osinfo.Firmware objects, we won't need > > any more work on libosinfo side in order to implement what we need in > > Boxes. > > > > All in all, adding to some OSes > > would be something you'd accept? > > Yes, I was pretty much expecting we would need to add such info at some > point. > > Might it be easier to ask which OS do NOT support BIOS ? > > IOW, should we blindly add it to essentially every single OS, except for > the very few known to not support it any more. Oh! I should have read the whole thread before answering. Well, +1 for this approach. Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio
Re: State "bios" firmware support for OSes
Felipe, On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:06 PM Felipe Borges wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We recently landed EFI support in GNOME Boxes where we create guests > with "firmware = efi" by default when libosinfo reports that the OS > supports it. This has worked great except for the regression with > snapshots. Long story short, internal snapshots won't work with EFI, > external snapshots won't allow our users to revert their domain to a > certain snapshot. > > For this reason, the Boxes designers and I concluded that the best > approach for us here would be to only create EFI guests for OSes that > REQUIRE it. If an OS can still boot with the legacy "bios" we should > go for it, since it maintains our Snapshot management functionality. > > The reason I am emailing libosinfo about this is to assess whether you > folk would be open to having me adding type="bios"/> to the OSes that support it (some of them already state > support for EFI). > > Since the API returns a list of Osinfo.Firmware objects, we won't need > any more work on libosinfo side in order to implement what we need in > Boxes. > > All in all, adding to some OSes > would be something you'd accept? I'd take the opposite direction, Felipe. Although our schema supports , as you can see here[0], I'd rather assume that all OSes support BIOS, unless something like is set, and we're prepared for this[1]. So, what about changing the check we do on Boxes[2] to something like: ``` if (firmware.get_firmware_type () == "bios" && !firmware.is_supported ()) return true ``` That should do the trick. [0]: https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/-/blob/master/data/schema/osinfo.rng.in#L936 [1]: https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/-/blob/master/data/schema/osinfo.rng.in#L596 [2]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-boxes/-/blob/master/src/installer-media.vala#L65 Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio
Re: State "bios" firmware support for OSes
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We recently landed EFI support in GNOME Boxes where we create guests > with "firmware = efi" by default when libosinfo reports that the OS > supports it. This has worked great except for the regression with > snapshots. Long story short, internal snapshots won't work with EFI, > external snapshots won't allow our users to revert their domain to a > certain snapshot. > > For this reason, the Boxes designers and I concluded that the best > approach for us here would be to only create EFI guests for OSes that > REQUIRE it. If an OS can still boot with the legacy "bios" we should > go for it, since it maintains our Snapshot management functionality. > > The reason I am emailing libosinfo about this is to assess whether you > folk would be open to having me adding type="bios"/> to the OSes that support it (some of them already state > support for EFI). > > Since the API returns a list of Osinfo.Firmware objects, we won't need > any more work on libosinfo side in order to implement what we need in > Boxes. > > All in all, adding to some OSes > would be something you'd accept? Yes, I was pretty much expecting we would need to add such info at some point. Might it be easier to ask which OS do NOT support BIOS ? IOW, should we blindly add it to essentially every single OS, except for the very few known to not support it any more. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
State "bios" firmware support for OSes
Hi everyone, We recently landed EFI support in GNOME Boxes where we create guests with "firmware = efi" by default when libosinfo reports that the OS supports it. This has worked great except for the regression with snapshots. Long story short, internal snapshots won't work with EFI, external snapshots won't allow our users to revert their domain to a certain snapshot. For this reason, the Boxes designers and I concluded that the best approach for us here would be to only create EFI guests for OSes that REQUIRE it. If an OS can still boot with the legacy "bios" we should go for it, since it maintains our Snapshot management functionality. The reason I am emailing libosinfo about this is to assess whether you folk would be open to having me adding to the OSes that support it (some of them already state support for EFI). Since the API returns a list of Osinfo.Firmware objects, we won't need any more work on libosinfo side in order to implement what we need in Boxes. All in all, adding to some OSes would be something you'd accept? Cheers, Felipe.
