On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Bryan Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Brian C. Lane wrote: >> It's probably worth filing a bug about. > > Yeah, I might file a bug that is a bit "more broad," especially after > Chris Murphy pointed out his [bz#1046577]. > > E.g., in addition to 1046577#c3 from Adam on the spec, even #c1 from > Rod Smith (of rEFInd et al. fame) pointed out that some uEFI > implementations take issue with various FAT32 ESP sizes that aren't at > least 512MiB too, well beyond the 4KiB logical sector requirements of > 260MiB. I'd find the missing "EFI file system" document, or confirm it doesn't exist, before planning work. The UEFI spec uses imprecise language, it doesn't say "FAT32 must be used on internal drives" it says it should be used on system partitions. Well all of these things are system partitions. Later it says the firmware should support all three FAT variants, so does it really matter if it's all mixed and matched? > So ... where do we "draw the line" on what situations Anaconda should > deal with? And how much development should I expect to sack you guys > with? Maybe mkdosfs -E just makes the proper "EFI file system" instead of pure FAT, whatever that difference is. And still takes options from something else. That something else could be storaged? I can predict people will break these ESPs beyond repair, they're mounted persistently all the time on Linux and if there's a crash they're really not crash tolerant for some time (minute? minutes?) after the last modification. > > Now add in my totally non-Linux comment that in multi-boot > configuration, where Windows is expected, Microsoft expects an 0C01h > (msftres) partition, and ideally (per OEM guides for Windows x64 > version 7, 8 and now 10), it should be after the ESP (#1 and #2, or #2 > and #3 if there is a "Tools" in #1). > > Yeah, this we'll get out-of-control if we try to accommodate every > situation, every uEFI misdesign, the uEFI spec and even multi-boot > with non-Linux. > > So ... might I have a suggestion? > And if you like it, I'll file the RFE myself, with the justification. > > How about we solve this with a checkbox ... or two? > > Suggested Checkbox One: > [ ] Other OSes (including Windows x64) will also be installed > Conditions ... (i.e., don't show checkbox unless met) > - Native 64-bit uEFI Storage Services > - Drive is being wiped w/EFI System Partition (ESP) created > Results ... > - Part 1: 1-384MiB EF00h (esp) FAT32 = 383MiB (>260MiB) > - Part 2: 384-512MiB 0C01h (msftres) = 128MiB > > Suggested Checkbox Two: > [ ] Create a large EFI System Partition (ESP) > Conditions ... (i.e., don't show checkbox unless met) > - Native 64-bit uEFI Storage Services > - Drive is being wiped w/EFI System Partition (ESP) created > Results ... > - Part 1: 1-640MiB EF00h (esp) FAT32 = 639MiB (>512MiB) > And if first checkbox selected, also ... > - Part 2: 640-768MiB 0C01h (msftres) = 128MiB You want to support installing Windows after Fedora? Why? I don't know what "Native 64-bit uEFI Storage Services" means or how that affects the use case. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
