Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

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

 



On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:14:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> 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.

Would also allow "we drop a ext2.efi driver to BSP to access $BOOT"
I guess?

cheers,
  Gerd
_______________________________________________
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/QTAGOWS3GCR6FZYCELGVGHLZHT33BYAC/




[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