Hi again, Am 12. Januar 2025 19:17:19 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org>: >On 12/01/2025 at 16:29, Holger Wansing wrote: >> Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 >> +0100): >>> >>> I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes >>> only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or >>> without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using >>> guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot). >> >> Ok, so that's fine. >> With this fix in place, there is at least the LVM partitioning scheme >> (with or without encryption), which works out of the box with default >> choice. >> And assuming we got no complains before about this situation on this machine, >> I guess it's fine this way. > >There is too much inconsistency here for me to say it is fine.
"Is fine" was rather meant as "ok, I understand what you meant". >On one hand, the recipes for ppc64el create an optional ext2 /boot partition >only with LVM, which means that booting with Petitboot will fail if the user >chooses guided partitioning without LVM. > >On the other hand, the recipes for arm64 uselessly create a mandatory ext4 >/boot partition even without LVM. > >In between, the recipes for amd64 create an optional ext4 /boot partition only >with LVM and the default recipes create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in >all cases. > >Either a common boot loader for a given architecture does not support /boot on >ext4 and then the recipes for this architecture should create a mandatory ext2 >/boot partition in all cases (like default recipes), or all common boot >loaders are known to support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes should create >an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM (like recipes for amd64). What you describe would be the perfect world. But what we have here leads to a trade-off anyway. We cannot do it perfectly right for all cases. Holger -- Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3
