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. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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
