On Do, 28.07.22 10:25, Chris Adams (linux@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > Given the overlap of the Fedora/RH boot loader folks and the shim > > folks, I think there's definitely an avenue to get systemd-boot signed > > as payload for SHIM, as alternative to Grub. If Fedora wants this, and > > has the man power for it, it should be a quite a reachable goal, given > > that sd-boot has only a tiny fraction of the code footprint that Grub has. > > So, I went to look a little more at systemd-boot/sd-boot... and noticed > the packaging is really odd in Fedora. Why is it shoved into the > systemd-udev RPM? It seems that systemd-boot should be its own > subpackage. I think this was mostly done because the rpm split originally done was to separate out parts that you need when booting systemd in a container from those which you do not need there. udev/sd-boot is useless in a container, hence it was split out, and was turned into a seperate new rpm, named after one of the most prominent components. I am not involved in systemd packaging anymore, but I am sure if you make your case on rhbz Zbigniew or so will consider your case. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
