Your message dated Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:57:15 +0100 with message-id <20241110205715.caedec3285eed5ef79276...@mailbox.org> and subject line Re: Bug#1086051: [arm64] partman recipes: add new identifier for legacy_boot flag on GPT table? has caused the Debian Bug report #1086051, regarding [arm64] partman recipes: add new identifier for legacy_boot flag on GPT table? to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1086051: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1086051 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: partman-auto Version: 168 This is a follow-up for #1078871: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1078871 Shortly it has been mentioned, that there are arm64 systems out there (for example Rockchip), which require the 'legacy_boot' flag on the root partition (or on separate /boot partition if such exists) on GPT table, to be able to boot. [1] + further messages in the bug To be able to set this 'legacy_boot' flag in a clean way and not mix this up with setting of parted's 'boot'/'esp' flag on EFI partitions, it was suggested to add a new identifier like '$legacy_boot{ }' to the pre-generated partman recipes. This identifier could then set the 'legacy_boot' flag on root/boot partitions, while the existing $bootable{ } identifier handles 'boot'/'esp' flag on EFI partitions. A new branch has been created for this proposal: [2] Alternatively, we could add a value to the existing '$bootable{ }' specifier to indicate we want to set the 'legacy_bootable' flag on GPT (and the 'boot' flag on other disk labels). E.g. $bootable{ } -> set 'boot' on non-GPT only $bootable{ legacy } -> set 'boot' on non-GPT and 'legacy_boot' on GPT What do people think about such changing the long-standing format of pre-generated recipes? Holger [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1078871#67 [2] https://salsa.debian.org/pham/partman-auto/-/commits/legacy_boot_specifier/?ref_type=heads -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Version: 170 > On 31/10/2024 at 21:26, Holger Wansing wrote: > > Am 29. Oktober 2024 21:27:24 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg > > <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org>: > >> On 29/10/2024 at 06:04, Holger Wansing wrote: > >>> > >>> For the recipe / guided partitioning part: > >>> To be backward-compatible for the already existing identifier,, and keep > >>> the format consistent, I would prefer using identifiers like > >>> > >>> $bootable{ } > >>> $legacy_boot{ } > >>> > >>> as proposed in > >>> <https://salsa.debian.org/pham/partman-auto/-/commits/legacy_boot_specifier/?ref_type=heads> > >> > >> Then if nobody objects, I will open a merge request from this branch. > > > > Yes, please. > > <https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-auto/-/merge_requests/21> Merged and uploaded into partman-auto 170 -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
--- End Message ---
