On Mi, 01.07.20 18:31, Gerd Hoffmann (kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > One problem with sd-boot is that the kernels must stay on the ESP, which > > > can be a problem for dual-boot installs (where Fedora has to run with > > > the existing ESP and can't just create one which is big enouth). > > > > Nah, that's not true. Hasn't been for quite a while. > > > > sd-boot checks for kernels in the ESP first, and then on a second > > partition we called XBOOTLDR, which also can contain kernels. XBOOTLDR > > partition is simply a partition with type UUID > > bc13c2ff-59e6-4262-a352-b275fd6f7172. > > Ah, this is news to me. XBOOTLDR must be formated with a filesystem the > uefi firmware can read (i.e. vfat in practice) I assume? The spec doesn't strictly mandate that in the general case. I think it would still be wise to stick to vfat, given that this means all kind of firmware can easily read it, but if your boot loader/firmware can read something else that's OK too. > > sd-boot is uefi only, but it should work fine with any arch that is > > supported by uefi. > > Seems it isn't built for armhfp in Fedora (/usr/lib/systemd/boot/efi > doesn't exist ...). Hmm, I know that people build it on ARM, I guess we could enable that in Fedora too. I am not an ARM pro myself, not sure what happens there right now. Upstream sd-boot has support for UEFI ia32, x64, arm and aa64. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
