Debian Bug report logs - #832687
support uefi

Package: open-infrastructure-system-build; Maintainer for open-infrastructure-system-build is Daniel Baumann <[email protected]>; Source for open-infrastructure-system-build is src:open-infrastructure-system-tools (PTS, buildd, popcon).

Reported by: Raphaël Hertzog <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:33:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Full log

Message #178 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 731709) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jan 2016 11:57:56 +0000
From [email protected] Mon Jan 18 11:57:56 2016
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2014-02-07) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FOURLA,FREEMAIL_FROM,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 27; hammy, 150; neutral, 152; spammy,
	0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--HX-Google-DKIM-Signature:in-reply-to,
	0.000-+--HX-Google-DKIM-Signature:references, 0.000-+--unbootable,
	0.000-+--genisoimage, 0.000-+--grubefi
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::231])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
	(Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1aL8RY-0001td-5M
	for [email protected]; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:57:56 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r129so48189375wmr.0
        for <[email protected]>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 03:57:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=0vTDHj5O4+hefh0gRotgKAmJmE45NfCYNpW1CaF30vw=;
        b=l2XmaCZPLlUfX/jaGYYZNnTdb5PcC+SAd9xt9KY5SXPklRrxnuhgGNH74CEX2mW4+H
         hT2Mp9D47CNZF7s4+Dqb0KM33/bkJ0kJymfkvXRsqZZgKsXxpOrVFkzb2cPaSJmPXAkI
         Bbx2Y3+wSL1Zz6wosjAMv+VyFhXffzU5tcixPqcz8ny6MQ70s02KoFhUwGO0CqLIlMU1
         0EbVg3Bc10HQU+NOW8q4KuFTLMiwfDWNKjPUp7QJf7ft7qPHQ1qI+C1Dkh+9yD8CiONp
         o+XyRJGJ1iXyv33OmZgKN40Hd7CATTCBk+xaVYK2zqrKjOdGq0OmJRMDBmolDvvdryLV
         BdOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=0vTDHj5O4+hefh0gRotgKAmJmE45NfCYNpW1CaF30vw=;
        b=imPB15Q9ODTFb1U9D+5mKJcu0/Uf/9R03DDk5JyE6KJfS47QANqPFsXxnuMHrGtDOM
         NdtShohbJeCqSK3/UAfkpZVifLiBdyA48IWVeewMVrN4hrAWcDSN04PQqYNhQQuiB1LQ
         b3Jrp5POWhA3iLzKx3UtGQpjOdf0ENNv2kilnof6UQqvlL2PoBiMnug/HzeHQhLSTsHj
         BaFyvKItpbb+Y5FnhExUmW5zmdBgUgEf8ChCVi5+OftfLBbyq5Vpytv8xZ799y6IXTFn
         OTCTAg7tYUU9R1hymD3bKVwCw7qOCXCBzJhI7uyXqAofTndFRnC+YxHwDQ7uijJSlyeW
         GNUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS9bdMPMtzoQG7SZWUBMl5rbA4hZydBxevfbzmN3r8ZS3odrBoxbYllM8udvHWCcNxiwpdBRotTRnwotA==
X-Received: by 10.28.230.92 with SMTP id d89mr13699596wmh.12.1453118269279;
 Mon, 18 Jan 2016 03:57:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.20.36 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 03:57:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <CAOMqctS8uMmmZCz03EOcfheKbDWaauS5xB0CF9wLbdZu6HEbbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
From: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:57:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOMqctTQnLbmEs7zyRiNTbnhiorw+rpKaJ2Cu+AGmzQtPWXt+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#731709: grub-efi UEFI support based on debian-cd work
 complete (repos)
To: adrian15 <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]>, jnqnfe <[email protected]>, 
	Thomas Schmitt <[email protected]>, Gaudenz Steinlin <[email protected]>, Has <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 18 January 2016 at 10:43, adrian15 <[email protected]> wrote:
> El 18/01/16 a las 07:31, Michal Suchanek escribió:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> thanks for working on this.
>>

>
>> As to the primary and secondary bootloader - how is the efi bootloader
>> secondary? It boots the same as the legacy bootloader. You probably
>> want a concept of compatible bootloaders - that is pairs of
>> bootloaders that can be installed alongside on the same medium.
>
> * What is it a secondary bootloader?
>
> It's what happens when you request mkisofs that your bootloader to be boot
> in second place or as a second partition. I don't know how it actually
> works.
>
> So in grub-efi we just add to the xorriso options:
>
> -eltorito-alt-boot \
>  -e boot/grub/efi.img \
>  -no-emul-boot \
>  -isohybrid-gpt-basdat \
>  -isohybrid-apm-hfsplus
>
> And in syslinux-efi (currently) we add:
>
> -eltorito-alt-boot \
>  --efi-boot boot/efi.img \
>  -append_partition 2 0x01 \
>  binary/boot/efi.img

-eltorito-alt-boot is not documented option of xorriso. For
genisoimage -eltorito-alt-boot denotes start of new bootloader
parameters. So any bootloader is made primary by leaving out
-eltorito-alt-boot.

>
> .
>
> So, I guess the -eltorito-alt-boot does the magic but I'm not sure. Maybe
> someone else can explain it better than me.
>
>
> * About current compatible bootloaders.
> The technology is there. I mean. This is what it's currently available:
>
> binary_grub-efi : Secondary bootloader
> binary_grub-legacy : Primary bootloader
> binary_grub-pc : Primary bootloader
> binary_syslinux : Primary bootloader
> binary_syslinux-efi : Secondary bootloader
>
> so that means, in theory you can request one of these 9 combinations:
>
> grub-legacy
> grub-pc
> syslinux
>
> grub-legacy,grub-efi
> grub-pc,grub-efi
> syslinux,grub-efi
>
> grub-legacy,syslinux-efi
> grub-pc,syslinux-efi
> syslinux,syslinux-efi

You can probably use only one legacy bootloader but syslinux-efi and
grub-efi use different files so it should be possible to install both.
I am not sure how selecting one or the other would work, though.

>
>> Unless
>> the user requests two bootloaders that are incompatible the medium can
>> be created.
>>
>> Ignoring bootloaders is not a good idea. If the user requested
>> something that is not possible the build should report an error and
>> stop.
>
> Yeah, that it's hard to implement from the perspective of a single
> bootloader script. So I decided not to implement it.
>
> You could add an additional script or function named:
> check_compatible_bootable_pairs (as you propose) but then you need to
> maintain that fictional database each time a new bootloader gets in.
>
> That's why I decide to avoid it using it.
>
> What it's straight-forward to implement is one of the only-secondary
> bootloaders finding themselves as a primary bootloader and outputting a
> warning message. But, I'm not sure what to put there as a warning. Any
> suggestion?

Unsupported bootloader combination or whatever.

It should not be a warning however. The script should avoid making
unbootable medium.

Thanks

Michal

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Debian bug tracking system administrator <[email protected]>. Last modified: Tue May 13 08:55:05 2025; Machine Name: buxtehude

Debian Bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

Copyright © 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson, 2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors.