On Thu, 15.05.14 19:37, Matthew Garrett (mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:10:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Thu, 15.05.14 18:33, Matthew Garrett (mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > > I'm talking about the menu in the preferences pane inside OS X. The > > > spec's requirement that we use VFAT would break that. > > > > Well, having two ESPs, one in FAT, one in HFS+ is a blatant violation of > > EFI, and not what is done when windows is installed on a mac > > either... The pref panel doesn't really matter as there's a boot menu of > > the firmware you can use to boot your OSes. > > Windows ends up with reduced access to the hardware. We do what OS X > does, not what Windows does, because that's the only way to get (for > example) working Thunderbolt. You are not really suggesting that having a second HFS+ ESP in place is what turns on Thunderbolt, are you? > > > Autodiscovery makes it impossible to pass additional options to other > > > bootloaders. I don't think we care that much in general, but some users > > > may have requirements for it. It'd be nice to have a common format to > > > express that. > > > > If you want to pass aditional options, then add a manual drop-in for > > it. The BLS supports EFI binaries just fine. And for MBR chainloading > > there isn't any sane way to pass parameters anyway... > > What's the objection to specifying a mechanism for chainloading? Chainloading for MBR? Well, for starters, that there is no need for it, and clearly legacy. However, more importantly: one design decision of the BLS was to not require cross-device links. We consciously avoided all the complexities this involves, and will rely on the kernel having identified the ESP/boot disk, from which we read what we need. Cross-device/partition links always get nasty, require invention of a spefication language, involving technology-specific identifiers... On EFI the device paths generally are ignored if a partition UUID is included, since actually checking the device path is so error prone and broken. And then trying to come up with a scheme that works on both EFI and on MBR is just intensly complex. Hence: we would rather not reference anything outside of the immedaiety boot partition. I really don't see why grub's native old config wasn't good enough for that. THe BLS module I wrote for grub was supposed to be used in combination with a fixed config file for any other windowses you might have installed. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
