https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 --- Comment #23 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #22) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #21) > > He's saying it should not be overwriting the shim EFI binary, and I agree, that's Bad(tm). > > The example I showed is for the unsigned binary that replaces shim. > Once the binary has been signed, we'll have to install it under a different > path where > shim can pick it up. From what we looked at, we might have to call ourselves > either 'grubx64.efi' > or 'fallbackx64.efi', because that's what shim looks for. If shim gets > support for looking for > a more generic name later, we could switch to that. Is there a BZ filed about supporting a generic name for second-stage EFI boot manager binaries? I'd like to track that too... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
