Could someone sign systemd-boot please? That EFI boot seems simple to
use and very minimal especially for both x64 arch based desktop and laptop.
On 2022-07-26 16:14, Chris Murphy wrote:
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.
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
_______________________________________________
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
