make the i386 *buntu version check for UEFI

Bug #1173527 reported by sudodus on 2013-04-27
34
This bug affects 8 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
ubiquity
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Make the Ubuntu and flavours i386 (32-bit) version check for UEFI, and if found, bail out and advice to download and install the 64-bit version.

This is relevant for 12.04.2, 12.10 and 13.04 (and probably future releases too).

sanderj@ubuntuforums suggests

'http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop indeed says "If you have a PC
with the Windows 8 logo or UEFI firmware, choose the 64-bit download.".
I would find it useful if the i386 Ubuntu version would check for UEFI,
and if so, bail out and advice the 64-bit version. Just like the 64-bit
install does when you try to run it on 32-bit'

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2139499&p=12621271#post12621271

I think this is a good idea :-)

Best regards
Nio alias sudodus

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: ubiquity (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.5.0-27.46~precise1-generic 3.5.7.7
Uname: Linux 3.5.0-27-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.0.1-0ubuntu17.2
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Apr 27 11:13:00 2013
InstallCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/casper/vmlinuz.efi file=/cdrom/preseed/ubuntu.seed boot=casper quiet splash --
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS "Precise Pangolin" - Release amd64 (20130213)
MarkForUpload: True
ProcEnviron:
 TERM=xterm
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 LANG=sv_SE.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: ubiquity
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

sudodus (nio-wiklund) wrote :
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Jackson Doak (noskcaj) on 2013-04-27
tags: added: lucid quantal raring
Sander Jonkers (jonkers) wrote :

Seems to be related to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1025555 , which says:

/quote

CONCLUSION:
- grub-efi 32bits always creates invalid entries.
- Installing Ubuntu32 bits on an EFI system should be blocked by Ubiquity (the Ubuntu installer). In this case, Ubiquity should ask the user to install Ubuntu64 instead.

/unquote

sudodus (nio-wiklund) wrote :

Yes, these bug reports are definitely linked to each other, looking at the problem from different perspectives.

FredL (f-lahuis) wrote :

The main problem is that there are EFI only 32 bit systems, so bailing out and advising to install the 64 bit version is not a solution for those. Either the 32 bit iso should support EFI or there should be a separate 32 bit efi iso.

sudodus (nio-wiklund) wrote :

I see. I didn't know of that complication. Then bailing out is not an option.

But there could still be an information message written, so that people who are trying with 32-bits on the new 64-bit UEFI systems get warned. Maybe the 32-bit guys can stand such a text, if it is well written and the system will continue afterwards.

YannUbuntu (yannubuntu) wrote :

agreed with post#6 above.
The 32bit disc could warn if it detects that the CPU is 64bit.

Dimitri John Ledkov (xnox) wrote :

64bit computers can run 32bit version of ubuntu. To show warnings, we need to boot. If the 32bit image managed to boot, the system in question does support legacy boot and it is active / being used. Therefore there is no reason for installation to fail. If on the other hand the cd does not boot, one would assume something is odd and we would not be able to show a warning =) Therefore this bug report is in my opinion invalid.

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Invalid
sudodus (nio-wiklund) wrote :

The problem is that a person who is trying Ubuntu might just discard it saying "Ubuntu doesn't work on this computer", when the solution is simply to select the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit version.

Do you mean that the 32-bit Ubuntu systems will be completely locked out, so that they won't even be allowed to write a message 'to select the 64-bit system instead' before quitting? Would it be necessary to have Microsoft's signature for it to boot? And would that cost too much (money or disk space (the CD limit))?

Kevin Ross (kevdog777) on 2013-05-07
Changed in ubiquity:
status: New → Invalid
skybon (skybon) wrote :

The true solution of this bug would be to scrap 32-bit Ubuntu altogether.

sudodus (nio-wiklund) wrote :

Canonical and the Ubuntu Community has promised long time support of 12.04 (with a 32-bit version and a 64-bit verson) until April 2017, so the issue is relevant at least until that date. But if it technically impossible to solve, we have to accept that.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers