On 06/22/2018 02:57 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 22.06.18 19:01, Javier Martinez Canillas (jav...@dowhile0.org) wrote:
>
>>> Whereas constantly changing the ESP, means we need some way to
>>> establish a master and rsync to the extras.
>> So the consensus seems to be to have the BLS fragments in
>> $BOOT/loader/entries even on EFI, where $BOOT is the boot partition
>> mounted on /boot. That will give us the following advantages as
>> mentioned in this thread:
> Uh, as one of the authors of the spec, I am not convinced using
> arbitrary non-FAT file systems for $BOOT. In fact the spec currently
> says it has to be VFAT. I wouldn't call that "consensus".
>
> Which file system do you have in mind even for this?
>
> As far as I know it's very clear now that boot loaders have a hard
> time implementing any of the current file systems properly. AFAIK the
> XFS folks as one case were pretty clear that any implementation of XFS
> which is not the in-kernel one is not supportable, but I am pretty
> sure for the other more modern file systems things aren't too
> different either. The fact that grub doesn't properly implement XFS is
> a real issue, as I am sure you know, since it won't replay the
> journal, and hence doesn't see changes made on previous boots when the
> file system wasn't unmounted (which is a regularly seen issue, as ply
> keeps XFS busy during shutdown), resulting in unbootable systems.
>
> Why not just stick to VFAT? As mentioned, it's really the only thing
> generally understood by everything that has a stake in boot
> loading. Grub speaks it. The EFI firmware speaks it (and that also
> means the EFI shell, which is immensly useful). Linux speaks it in the
> initrd and after boot. Windows speaks it. MacOS speaks it. It's the
> lowest common denominator and should be entirely sufficient to store a
> few kernels and their initrds. I mean, we build our kernels as EFI
> binaries on Fedora, IIRC. Wouldn't it be a pity if EFI can't actually
> access them, because they are stored on an fs only Linux speaks?
Anaconda in F28 currently claims /boot cannot be vfat. However, this
appears to be an artificial limitation, because `grub2-install` works
and makes a bootable GRUB with a vfat-typed --boot-directory.
I'm not sure why there would be an issue with /boot being vfat. I guess
two good questions to ask that might offer some insight:
* What filesystem limitations make vfat unappealing? (do we need
symlinks?)
* Does Fedora plan to support installing with bootloaders other than
GRUB on x86?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UW7ASBMC5VPEELQXZ5GTGC6ZZ3SNNRSX/
