On Fr, 22.06.18 13:35, Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > $BOOT being non-vfat is a fairly substantial departure from either > BootLoaderSpec, the original requires $BOOT be vfat, the mjg59 version > require $BOOT be firmware readable. That is not a complaint, I'm just > making an observation of the consequences. I'm personally on the fence > when it comes to the merit of a shared $BOOT. It sounds like a good > idea, but maybe it's specious? BTW, I think we should actually relax the wording in the spec, and move towards matthew's version on this: instead of saying "must be vfat" to say "must be firmware readable" essentially means the same, but is friendlier towards MacOS of course. So yes, we should totally relax the language on this, but not, using completely arbitrary file systems on this certainly doesn't make much sense. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ 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/6B6ABM25RUSGSIFQQLZPFK57VISF7MA4/
