Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, at 3:30 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> > And in my opinion, it's not simple to say: OK if you have this size
> > ESP to start, you get this layout, and if it's bigger you get this
> > other layout, and if it's BIOS you have this 3rd layout.

Chris, I have to say I'm glad you're part of the Fedora community - your
input on this topic has been very valuable!

> Well, for fresh installs[1] there is no reason to have efi and bios use
> different layouts.  You can just do this:

When you say "install" it really matters to say install of *what* - a
desktop system, a physical server, a VM, etc.

>From my perspective (Fedora CoreOS developer) that straddles
both physical and cloud for the server case, the problem is that
the virtualized case, and in particular public cloud, and really
specifically EC2 - no one really cares about EFI to boot their VMs.
Except a special case here is "disaster recovery" scenarios where
a physical server is imaged and uploaded to the cloud as a VM,
and the topic of UEFI does come up there.  Apparently most
implementations of this convert back to BIOS.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Lennart (indirectly) in that it is
kind of crazy how influentual the "Windows dual boot for desktop"
case is on everything Fedora, which also includes physical
servers.  But the virtualized case also pushes at this from the other
angle.

>   [root@ibm-p8-kvm-03-guest-02 ~]# fdisk -l /dev/sda
>   Disk /dev/sda: 4 GiB, 4294967296 bytes, 8388608 sectors
>   Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>   Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>   I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>   Disklabel type: gpt
>   Disk identifier: 92035660-BEFD-45D5-9883-B2B91EC429D1
> 
>   Device       Start     End Sectors  Size Type
>   /dev/sda1     2048   10239    8192    4M BIOS boot
>   /dev/sda2    10240 1058815 1048576  512M EFI System

I wouldn't *oppose* that; in fact if you (or someone else)
wanted to push for that with e.g. Fedora CoreOS, I'd be happy
to discuss it.  But it's not like it has a truly compelling advantage
over what we ship today - it'd just be *another* weird variant
of things in the end right?  

And the fact that FAT has no ability to do atomic replacement bothers
me a lot. (A wrinkle here is that ostree implements an atomic swap of
/boot/loader - you can today boot FAH/Silverblue and just ls -al /boot
to see it)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/MNRANIETDFYCPU5RN3MEW65W6PFSI7C2/




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux