Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Lennart Poettering
 wrote:
> On Wed, 01.06.16 19:53, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:

>> Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and
>> OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any
>> installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one.
>
> I never had a problem with that. On my system Windows 10 allocated
> 256MB for the ESP and I only have 85 MB of that used with two
> kernels. It's a vendor-installed Windows (Lenovo).

And on Dell's it's 100MB. Windows itself has no say in the matter.
Most Windows "installations" are imaged by the OEM, not with the
Microsoft installer. But if you go download an eval copy of Windows
Enterprise either version 8 or 10, that installer creates a 99MiB
(literally, according to gdisk) ESP.


>
>> Next, it rather seems like rearranging the deck chairs. There's no
>> major advantage. The boot manager gets a bit smaller but now it's
>> mandatory to put the kernel and initramfs on the ESP, unlike any other
>> OS. You get to drop the 500MB ext4 /boot, but now you have to have a
>> 500MB or possibly larger, FAT32 /boot, in order to hold 4 kernels and
>> initramfs's. When those initramfs's are the nohostonly or reproducible
>> variety, they're currently 50MB on Fedora 24.
>
> On my Fedora 24 they are ~30M each.

If it's an upgrade from a previous version of Fedora you're probably
not running into a new behavior in Fedora 24 where all the initramfs's
are nohostonly. 30MB sounds like a hostonly initramfs to me.

On a new Fedora 24 (prerelease) installation, /boot consumes 142MB
with two copies of the kernel and two initramfs. Since one set is
rescue, this is actually just 1 kernel against the dnf
installonly_limit of 3. So that means /boot is expected to hold five
kernels and initramfs's simultaneously. Upon five being there
successfully, one is deleted to maintain the limit of 3 plus rescue.

So in no possible realm does this fit onto a 100MB ESP where Windows
uses 26MB of that.

And on a 256MB ESP, it might work it might not. Perhaps it will today,
bu it probably won't in the near future.


> Which means at the Windows default
> of 256M, and 25M of that used by Windows I can still install ~5
> kernels or so...

By stuffing the ESP to 91% of capacity, OK. FAT is so well known about
that it's one of those file systems where we got the "my god man,
whatever you do don't use more than 80% of free space!" advice. The
TPM stuff being worked on is going to necessitate a reproducible
initramfs and near as I can tell it's as big as a nohostonly
initramfs.


>> So kernel+system.map+initramfs = ~60MB which is ~60x bigger than
>> most boot managers. And some use cases will want posix permissions
>> and xattr support, which is lacking on FAT; and still others that
>> will want the initramfs at least on an encrypted volume.
>
> sd-boot certainly requires none of that.

Sure but does it support any of that even if the pre-boot environment
understands those on disk formats via GRUB fs modules being wrapped as
EFI drivers, such that the kernel and initramfs can exist on something
other than the ESP?



-- 
Chris Murphy
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas  wrote:
> Hmm, I thought Windows creates a 512 MB ESP by default (as per MS's own
> recommendations)?

It depends on the OEM. Few installations are done by users/admins,
Windows is pre-installed and the restore software is OEM specific, and
typically isn't customizable. You point it at a drive, and it
obliterates the drive in favor of the restore image layout. On a
recent Dell it was 100MB for the ESP.

For 512 byte sector drives, Microsoft says the minimum is 100MB. Many
OEMs use exactly 100MB. Microsoft's own Windows 8 and Windows 10
installers use 100MB.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd799232%28v=ws.10%29.aspx

For 4kN drives, they're made 260MB.

For years now distros have made a separate /boot partition 500MB.
RH/Fedora Anaconda team is planning to make it 1GB, due in part to
people running out of space with 500MB on RHEL apparently (for reasons
I can't track down other than it appears kdump expects to be able to
dump its images directly onto /boot which seems like a bad idea
whether or not /boot is an ESP).

So really no matter how you cut it, it's not workable, broadly, for
dual boot, unless you keep just a couple kernels and always make
hostonly initramfs or no initramfs. But if you're designing something
for "most" people, you have to take common lowest common denominator
cases into account and right now sd-boot doesn't do that.




-- 
Chris Murphy
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Andrei Borzenkov]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Lennart Poettering
 wrote:
>
> sd-boot certainly requires none of that.
>

640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 01.06.16 19:53, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Colin Guthrie  wrote:
> > Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
> >> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
> >> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
> >> legacy free systems.
> >
> > This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
> > kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
> > kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).
> >
> > I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
> > buy into it :(
> 
> Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and
> OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any
> installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one.

I never had a problem with that. On my system Windows 10 allocated
256MB for the ESP and I only have 85 MB of that used with two
kernels. It's a vendor-installed Windows (Lenovo).

> Next, it rather seems like rearranging the deck chairs. There's no
> major advantage. The boot manager gets a bit smaller but now it's
> mandatory to put the kernel and initramfs on the ESP, unlike any other
> OS. You get to drop the 500MB ext4 /boot, but now you have to have a
> 500MB or possibly larger, FAT32 /boot, in order to hold 4 kernels and
> initramfs's. When those initramfs's are the nohostonly or reproducible
> variety, they're currently 50MB on Fedora 24.

On my Fedora 24 they are ~30M each. Which means at the Windows default
of 256M, and 25M of that used by Windows I can still install ~5
kernels or so...

> So kernel+system.map+initramfs = ~60MB which is ~60x bigger than
> most boot managers. And some use cases will want posix permissions
> and xattr support, which is lacking on FAT; and still others that
> will want the initramfs at least on an encrypted volume.

sd-boot certainly requires none of that.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Mantas Mikulėnas]

Hmm, I thought Windows creates a 512 MB ESP by default (as per MS's own
recommendations)?

(With both Windows and two Arch kernels I've yet to run out of space on a
200 MB one. I guess it's different for Ubuntu which likes to hoard more
kernel packages than it can fit...)

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016, 04:53 Chris Murphy  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Colin Guthrie 
> wrote:
> > Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
> >> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
> >> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
> >> legacy free systems.
> >
> > This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
> > kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
> > kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).
> >
> > I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
> > buy into it :(
>
> Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and
> OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any
> installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one.
>
> Next, it rather seems like rearranging the deck chairs. There's no
> major advantage. The boot manager gets a bit smaller but now it's
> mandatory to put the kernel and initramfs on the ESP, unlike any other
> OS. You get to drop the 500MB ext4 /boot, but now you have to have a
> 500MB or possibly larger, FAT32 /boot, in order to hold 4 kernels and
> initramfs's. When those initramfs's are the nohostonly or reproducible
> variety, they're currently 50MB on Fedora 24. So
> kernel+system.map+initramfs = ~60MB which is ~60x bigger than most
> boot managers. And some use cases will want posix permissions and
> xattr support, which is lacking on FAT; and still others that will
> want the initramfs at least on an encrypted volume.
>
> It think it'd be better to put an EFI wrapper around the GRUB fs
> modules, so any UEFI boot manager inherits the ability to read
> anything GRUB already supports: cryptoluks, mdraid, lvm, btrfs, xfs,
> ext4, etc. No one actually needs to reinvent the fs wheel for each
> UEFI boot manager.
>
> But I do agree with the criticism of nested mounts, e.g. /boot/efi, as
> well as persistently mounting the ESP, which is also
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
>
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Andrei Borzenkov]

02.06.2016 04:53, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Colin Guthrie  wrote:
>> Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
>>> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
>>> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
>>> legacy free systems.
>>
>> This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
>> kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
>> kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).
>>
>> I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
>> buy into it :(
> 
> Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and
> OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any
> installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one.
> 

Regarding additional ESP - that is what openSUSE did a while back, and
it hit nasty issue with Windows - it gets completely confused to the
point where attempt to repair boot (using recovery boot from DVD)
destroys Windows EFI loader. So that is not an option either, although
this would be easy from installer PoV.

And of course having second ESP renders generator unusable either.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Colin Guthrie  wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
>> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
>> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
>> legacy free systems.
>
> This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
> kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
> kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).
>
> I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
> buy into it :(

Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and
OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any
installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one.

Next, it rather seems like rearranging the deck chairs. There's no
major advantage. The boot manager gets a bit smaller but now it's
mandatory to put the kernel and initramfs on the ESP, unlike any other
OS. You get to drop the 500MB ext4 /boot, but now you have to have a
500MB or possibly larger, FAT32 /boot, in order to hold 4 kernels and
initramfs's. When those initramfs's are the nohostonly or reproducible
variety, they're currently 50MB on Fedora 24. So
kernel+system.map+initramfs = ~60MB which is ~60x bigger than most
boot managers. And some use cases will want posix permissions and
xattr support, which is lacking on FAT; and still others that will
want the initramfs at least on an encrypted volume.

It think it'd be better to put an EFI wrapper around the GRUB fs
modules, so any UEFI boot manager inherits the ability to read
anything GRUB already supports: cryptoluks, mdraid, lvm, btrfs, xfs,
ext4, etc. No one actually needs to reinvent the fs wheel for each
UEFI boot manager.

But I do agree with the criticism of nested mounts, e.g. /boot/efi, as
well as persistently mounting the ESP, which is also

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 01.06.16 09:15, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote:

> I'd buy into it if vfat weren't so brittle – several times I had to use
> syslinux in /boot because the ESP lost *both* kernels I had in it... "sync;
> sync; unmount; mount; check" was part of my kernel update ritual for a
> while. Maybe it's the Linux driver, maybe it's my UEFI that's bad at FAT, I
> dunno.

Note that in today's systemd the ESP is automounted on request, and
unmounting when idle. This means that the FAT partition is generally
unmounted, except when you actually invoke bootctl. This should make
access pretty safe. (of course, this only works if the efi mount
generator actually does its job, it's not in effect if you explicit
mount something else into /boot).

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Marcos Mello]

Mantas Mikulėnas  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> 
> I'd buy into it if vfat weren't so brittle – several times I had to use
syslinux in /boot because the ESP lost *both* kernels I had in it... "sync;
sync; unmount; mount; check" was part of my kernel update ritual for a
while. Maybe it's the Linux driver, maybe it's my UEFI that's bad at FAT, I
dunno.
> I use /boot as ESP on the work laptop, but not really going to merge them
on the personal one just yet.
> 

I fear package managers that do not fsync things. pacman and rpm for example:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=208403
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/62090

Because of this I proposed for systemd-gpt-auto-generator:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2459
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Mantas Mikulėnas]

I'd buy into it if vfat weren't so brittle – several times I had to use
syslinux in /boot because the ESP lost *both* kernels I had in it... "sync;
sync; unmount; mount; check" was part of my kernel update ritual for a
while. Maybe it's the Linux driver, maybe it's my UEFI that's bad at FAT, I
dunno.

I use /boot as ESP on the work laptop, but not really going to merge them
on the personal one just yet.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, 11:47 Colin Guthrie  wrote:

> Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
> > hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
> > introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
> > legacy free systems.
>
> This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
> kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
> kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).
>
> I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
> buy into it :(
>
> Col
>
> --
>
> Colin Guthrie
> gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
> http://colin.guthr.ie/
>
> Day Job:
>   Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
> Open Source:
>   Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
>   PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
>   Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
>
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
>
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Colin Guthrie]

Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47:
> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
> legacy free systems.

This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted.
kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the
kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both).

I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to
buy into it :(

Col

-- 

Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
  Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
  Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
  PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
  Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Barry Scott]

On Monday 30 May 2016 18:47:22 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 29.05.16 19:39, Barry Scott (ba...@barrys-emacs.org) wrote:
> > I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
> > it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
> > then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.
> 
> /boot and the ESP exist for the same reasons really, and do the same
> job. Hence, systemd by default mounts the ESP to /boot and installs
> sd-boot there.
> 
> /boot/efi is a really crazy idea, as this means you always have to
> mount /boot (and actually have it!) before you can mount the ESP, and
> that's just off. After all in sd-boot the kernels are simply placed in
> the ESP, and there's really no point in having /boot at all...
> 
> Some distros patch sd-boot/bootctl to use /boot/efi instead, and the
> other's don't but don't mount the ESP to /boot either.  Given that it
> is that way, it might make sense to revisit the idea of making /boot
> and the ESP the same thing. But I am pretty sure /boot/efi is really
> the worst idea, hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
> legacy free systems.

Thank you for the background.

Barry

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 30.05.16 10:51, Simon McVittie (simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk) wrote:

> On 29/05/16 19:39, Barry Scott wrote:
> > I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
> > it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
> > then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.
> 
> I think mounting the EFI System Partition on /boot/efi is likely to be
> very common in practice. The kernel images in /boot are managed by dpkg
> on Debian derivatives, and dpkg requires (or at least strongly
> recommends) a POSIX filesystem on the directories it manages, so that it
> can do standard POSIX filesystem robustness tricks like hard links and
> atomic-overwrite.

On Fedora kernels are generally stored in /usr/lib/ (next to the
kmods) and copied over to /boot at install time, so that package
managers only own the kernels in /usr/lib and leave their dirty
fingers out of /boot.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sun, 29.05.16 19:39, Barry Scott (ba...@barrys-emacs.org) wrote:

> I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
> it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
> then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.

/boot and the ESP exist for the same reasons really, and do the same
job. Hence, systemd by default mounts the ESP to /boot and installs
sd-boot there.

/boot/efi is a really crazy idea, as this means you always have to
mount /boot (and actually have it!) before you can mount the ESP, and
that's just off. After all in sd-boot the kernels are simply placed in
the ESP, and there's really no point in having /boot at all...

Some distros patch sd-boot/bootctl to use /boot/efi instead, and the
other's don't but don't mount the ESP to /boot either.  Given that it
is that way, it might make sense to revisit the idea of making /boot
and the ESP the same thing. But I am pretty sure /boot/efi is really
the worst idea, hence an acceptable alternatively might be to
introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on
legacy free systems.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Simon McVittie]

On 29/05/16 19:39, Barry Scott wrote:
> I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
> it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
> then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.

I think mounting the EFI System Partition on /boot/efi is likely to be
very common in practice. The kernel images in /boot are managed by dpkg
on Debian derivatives, and dpkg requires (or at least strongly
recommends) a POSIX filesystem on the directories it manages, so that it
can do standard POSIX filesystem robustness tricks like hard links and
atomic-overwrite.

-- 
Simon McVittie
Collabora Ltd. 

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Michael Chapman]

On Sun, 29 May 2016, Barry Scott wrote:

I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.

Is there something I'm missing or is the default path wrong on Fedora?


I don't know what Linux distributions' long-term plans for this 
directory are, but to me it does make sense for /boot to actually be the 
ESP.


On my Fedora systems I do actually make it the ESP, and have /boot/EFI/EFI 
be an automounted bind-mount back to /boot/EFI, to cater for tools that 
have /boot/EFI/EFI hard-coded. Works well.


- Michael
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Chris Murphy]

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Barry Scott  wrote:
> I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
> it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
> then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.
>
> Is there something I'm missing or is the default path wrong on Fedora?

bootctl controls systemd-boot which previously was gummiboot. It's a
boot manager and isn't used by default on Fedora, which instead uses
GRUB as the boot manager (and also is the bootloader on non-UEFI
systems).

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

[Barry Scott]

I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24
it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI
then the EFI was always in /boot/efi.

Is there something I'm missing or is the default path wrong on Fedora?

Barry

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel