On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 at 18:28, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This refers to the minimum size being changed, but later it mentions > the default size being changed. Are the default & minimum sizes > effectively the same in this case ? I believe so. > nitpick - the github change linked is 512 MiB rather than 500 MB. I don't actually know whether Microsoft told the OEMs MiB or MB. Will find out. > My only thought is whether 512 MiB is sufficiently future proofed if we > start to make more use of UKIs, given that /boot by comparison is already > at 1 GiB by default IIUC ? It's a tradeoff; on some devices 1GB is going to be a significant chunk of the eMMC space used. I'll certainly bump up the maximum size tho -- I'll continue that discussion on the anaconda PR. > For any install which does end up using UKIs on the ESP, the /boot would > no longer need to be as large as it is today as it would not have kernel > images. In fact /boot could potentially not need to exist at all in any > EFI installs using UKIs. Right, I don't disagree. I just think the switch to ESPs and potentially nuking /boot is a different ChangeProposal :) As part of that we could delete /boot and enlarge /boot/efi but that's not the problem we're solving here. Let's do the little uncontroversial change first so firmware updates keep working, then we can work on the bigger changes that might be more controversial. Richard. _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
