> On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one? > > Can't we reduce the number of kernels by having *only* one UKI and a > rescue one that can be used to restore the previous working UKI from > /root if the active one fails? > > Or perhaps just have always 2 UKI (current, and former working). > Do we actually need a separate dedicated rescue UKI? Can't rescue be > implemented by booting the previously working UKI with a "rescue" > command line option ? Word of caution on 'rescue' images: MSFT just had to essentially render 10 years of recovery/install media unbootable due to the black lotus vulnerability. It was not (and still is not) pretty. When there's signatures and verifications involved, you really want an upgradable system. But if you set that whole infrastructure up, there's really not that much difference left with an A/B scheme. _______________________________________________ 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
