Could someone sign systemd-boot please? That EFI boot seems
simple to use and very minimal especially for both x64 arch based
desktop and laptop.
On 2022-07-26 16:14, Chris Murphy
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 4:42 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:Chris Murphy wrote:On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 4:06 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:As I already mentioned the last time this has come up: Why can we not, instead of chainloading Windows directly, chainload a systemd-boot configured to always bootnext to Windows?Pretty sure shim still hard codes the name grub$arch.efi as the 2nd bootloader. Hence having to rename sd-boot as grubx64.efi for shim to find and run it. They can't co-exist right now. Also, there's no current plan by anyone to add systemd-boot for Secure Boot signing.That is not what I suggested. I suggested shim → GRUB → systemd-boot → Windows (and shim → GRUB → Fedora, systemd-boot would be configured to always reboot to Windows, booting Fedora from GRUB would bypass it entirely), not shim → systemd-boot → Windows.OK. But still systemd-boot would need to be signed by Fedora. And be capable of defaulting to Windows, and hidden menu, so it doesn't show bootloader snippets on the boot or EFI volumes. I don't know whether it can be configured this way. It's a Rube Goldberg machine way of doing this. In effect three bootloaders to support. I'm not convinced this is the path of least resistance. But it seems to be worth considering.
-- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
