On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:48:12PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > 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. FTR, this got added in https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/7f1fc7c6d4. > Would also allow "we drop a ext2.efi driver to BSP to access $BOOT" > I guess? That'd be pretty cool. Is there a widely accepted driver? Google yields this: https://efi.akeo.ie/ https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Tasks-ext2-file-system-driver Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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/CXOM7UD6RXGVY5SG3LJS4KXOQTWSTBTZ/
