On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 06:43:24PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Robert Lange <rc...@drexel.edu> (2014-10-19): >> I agree with the original poster and argue for increasing the >> priority of this bug, because under certain circumstances it may >> make a Debian system appear to be unbootable. >> >> As it stands, if something causes the computer's EFI NVRAM to get >> wiped (e.g., user error, firmware bug, firmware upgrade), many >> computers will appear to be unbootable because their EFI >> implementations provide no way to scan for non-default bootloaders >> in the EFI System Partition. For a technically-oriented user, a boot >> disc such as rEFInd can be used to fix this, but less-savvy users >> will simply think that Debian broke. >> >> For reference, the default bootloader exists in the EFI System >> Partition at \EFI\BOOT\bootx64.efi (/boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/bootx64.efi >> as mounted in Debian) on a x86-64 architecture machine [UEFI >> Specification Version 2.4 (Errata B) Section 3.4.1]. If no NVRAM >> bootloader entries are applicable on a computer, the system will >> boot from the first default bootloader it finds on the first ESP >> partition it finds. >> >> To increase robustness of installations against firmware issues, the >> Debian installer should prompt the user to install a copy of the >> bootloader into the default bootloader location of the ESP. I would >> recommend that the default value of this prompt be Yes if no default >> bootloader currently exists, and No if one currently exists (along >> with the requisite warning about overwriting). > >Steve, > >what's your take on this topic?
That's exactly te kind of thing I think we should do, yes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021224228.gg7...@einval.com
