On 8/20/2014 9:48 PM, Armin K. wrote:
On 21.8.2014 1:49, Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
Howdy,
Last I had posted here, and to the BLFS list, was that I had
successfully installed an LFS system and a boatload of BLFS stuff. Been
using it with good success -- no surprise.
Last I looked, you LFS guys kind of frowned on using systemd, but the
few things I've read on the newest help pages indicates that at least
some people have been trying to install LFS using systemd.
What is the status of systemd and LFS at this time?
We have a systemd based LFS book, currently 7.5 stable with systemd-208
release and a development version with systemd-216 release.
Ok, so the development version uses systemd. I take it that all earlier
reservations have been resolved to the satisfaction of the LFS staff?
BLFS has
also got systemd counterpart recently, but that one strictly follows the
development book.
Could you please expand on that?
I had been trying, unsuccessfully, to install LFS using the UEFI
standard, since my motherboard uses it. Also, the Fedora host system
uses it. I was not successful, and used your standard non-UEFI
installation instead. There were problems with my ASUS bios that even
the ASUS support people were not able to solve.
Since I like to experiment, I'd like to try installing LFS again, on a
fresh system, using UEFI and systemd. Any comments?
Alan
I don't know how systemd would be important for UEFI. What I think is
you need a special bootloader or something like that. We got a request
to implement gummiboot in BLFS for (U)EFI setup. You can, for the time
being, try looking online on how to get UEFI bootloader working.
Well, I wasn't completely clear at first, but I know that UEFI issues
are independent from systemd.
As for getting a UEFI bootloader working, I researched the matter
extensively online late last fall, without any real resolution. I
concluded that a lot of UEFI stuff was being kept secret by various
players, from Fedora to ASUS to pretty much everyone else who had
actually got UEFI bootloaders to work. I know that some companies such
as Fedora have agreements with BIOS makers to do stuff that the average
hacker like me can't do. At least, not easily. I don't remember finding
a specific reason for the secrecy. I finally decided that it was due to
a combination of key players really not knowing what they're doing in
terms of the UEFI "standard", along with a reluctance to admit that to
their customers.
Alan
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
