On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 09:54:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 14.05.14 19:47, Matthew Garrett (mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:27:54AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > > > We really need to use the boot loader spec by default. Is there any > > > reason why the support for it was added to grub, but not enabled ? > > > > The full spec is incompatible with standard practices for the EFI system > > partition, > > Humm, is it? Is this about loving /boot/efi so much? Basically. There's a bunch of places that would need to be changed, and doing it meaningfully involves doing that across multiple distributions. I mean, we *could*, but it's a pain. > > and especially incompatible with the way we handle Mac > > hardware, so adoption is unlikely. > > Humm, what? the spec is used (in its gummiboot implementaiton) everyday > on macs, not sure what you are referring to. The bootloader needs to be on an HFS+ partition to appear in the OS X boot preferences. > > The boot fragments are more > > attractive, but don't currently let us express the full set of > > configuration that we support (there's no way to specify chainloading > > another bootloader, for instance). These seem fixable, but nobody's > > currently fixing them. > > The boot load spec stuff is not supposed to be necessarily exclusive. If > you want stuff like chainloading or memory checking or whatever else, > then i recommend simply doing that outside of the spec/drop-ins, and > leave the drop-ins for kernels and EFI binaries only. Then we have configuration split over two completely different formats. It's kind of unappealing. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
