On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 4:42 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 4:06 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >>> As I already mentioned the last time this has come up: Why can we not, >>> instead of chainloading Windows directly, chainload a systemd-boot >>> configured to always bootnext to Windows? >> >> Pretty sure shim still hard codes the name grub$arch.efi as the 2nd >> bootloader. Hence having to rename sd-boot as grubx64.efi for shim to find >> and run it. They can't co-exist right now. Also, there's no current plan >> by anyone to add systemd-boot for Secure Boot signing. > > That is not what I suggested. > > I suggested shim → GRUB → systemd-boot → Windows (and shim → GRUB → Fedora, > systemd-boot would be configured to always reboot to Windows, booting Fedora > from GRUB would bypass it entirely), not shim → systemd-boot → Windows.
OK. But still systemd-boot would need to be signed by Fedora. And be capable of defaulting to Windows, and hidden menu, so it doesn't show bootloader snippets on the boot or EFI volumes. I don't know whether it can be configured this way. It's a Rube Goldberg machine way of doing this. In effect three bootloaders to support. I'm not convinced this is the path of least resistance. But it seems to be worth considering. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
