---- On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:53:15 +0400 Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote --- > > And main argument: I'm aware of one example when "EFI" is hard-coded in > > signed secure boot GRUB binary. Debian has 4 signed GRUB binaries. All > > they are generated > > here:https://sources.debian.org/src/grub2/2.12-5/debian/build-efi-images/ > > . One of them, grubx64.efi is created using "grub-mkimage ... -p > > /EFI/debian". > Why do they use /EFI if it doesn't even work?
I will repeat: I tried to create GRUB .iso for my own uses. And I noticed that grub-mkrescue is incompatible with GRUB EFI binaries signed by Debian for reasons explained in my previous letter. But official Debian .iso images seem to be created without grub-mkrescue, and for this reason creators of official images didn't get these problems. So, /EFI *does* work for people who create official ISOs, they just don't use grub-mkrescue. > The question is who needs to change this You mean should Debian change "EFI" to "efi" or GRUB change "efi" to "EFI"? Of course, I want whole Linux ecosystem to converge to some single name, "efi" or "EFI". What should we choose? As I said in first letter, major distros (Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora) already use "EFI" in their ISOs. And at least one of them (Debian) hardcode "EFI" to signed binary. So, of course, GRUB should be changed, not distros. Because it is easier. -- Askar Safin https://types.pl/@safinaskar _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
