On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:53:16AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:43 AM Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, at 10:20 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Do, 09.10.25 14:51, Chris Murphy ([email protected]) wrote: > > >> Boot Loader Spec [1] says, verbatim > > >> > > >> "ESP must — and the MBR boot and GPT XBOOTLDR partition should — be a > > >> file system readable by the firmware" > > >> > > >> XBOOTLDR is permitted by the spec to be any file system. > > >> > > >> ESP and BOOTLDR are not required to be writeable by the firmware. > > > > > > Well, sure, we allowed some flexibility there, but made the intention > > > clear, no? > > > > Super clear. Non-FAT XBOOTLDR is permitted. Non-FAT EFI file system drivers > > to provide firmware-level support for a file system, is permitted. > > > > If Boot Loader Spec aims to constrain the UEFI spec, then it needs to use > > language that does that. > > > > >Of course, I regret having granted the flexibility, that > > > was a mistake. > > > > What about fixing the spec to reflect this? > > > > Because then the present behavior is a legitimately a bug and can be > > reverted to use the generic Linux partition type GUID, or something else. > > And stop proliferating non-FAT XBOOTLDR. > > > > If that happened, then we'd permanently diverge and stop attempting to > follow the spec for bootloader configuration. > > Remember that BLS is implemented in GRUB and ZIPL, both are used on > non-UEFI architectures.
What filesystem is used for them there? Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
