> > One problem with sd-boot is that the kernels must stay on the ESP, which
> > can be a problem for dual-boot installs (where Fedora has to run with
> > the existing ESP and can't just create one which is big enouth).
> Nah, that's not true. Hasn't been for quite a while.
> sd-boot checks for kernels in the ESP first, and then on a second
> partition we called XBOOTLDR, which also can contain kernels. XBOOTLDR
> partition is simply a partition with type UUID
> bc13c2ff-59e6-4262-a352-b275fd6f7172.

Ah, this is news to me.  XBOOTLDR must be formated with a filesystem the
uefi firmware can read (i.e. vfat in practice) I assume?

> > Another problem is that grub2 covers more architectures than sd-boot.
> > What is the plan for armhfp, ppc64, s390x?
> sd-boot is uefi only, but it should work fine with any arch that is
> supported by uefi.

Seems it isn't built for armhfp in Fedora (/usr/lib/systemd/boot/efi
doesn't exist ...).

> > IMHO a better preparation for deprecating BIOS would be to make new
> > installs bootable with both BIOS and UEFI.  Which isn't hard at least
> > for the "[x] use all space" case where Fedora can partition the disk as
> > it pleases:  Use gpt.  Create a bios boot partition, install grun-pc
> > there.  Create a ESP partition, install grub-efi there.  Create a
> > partition for the /boot filesystem.  Have both grubs pick up BLS config
> > from /boot/loader.
> My suggestion would be: don't standardize on boot loaders, standardize
> on the boot loader spec.

Using the above partition scheme probably works with sd-boot (instead of
grub-efi) too if you tag /boot as XBOOTLDR.

The point I was tring to make is that you can install fedora in a way
that the disk can be booted in both bios and uefi mode.

take care,
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to