Debian Bug report logs - #832687
support uefi

Full log

Message #88 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 731709) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Dec 2014 08:39:15 +0000
From [email protected] Wed Dec 10 08:39:15 2014
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2011-06-06) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROMDEVELOPER,
	HAS_BUG_NUMBER,MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 16; hammy, 150; neutral, 74; spammy,
	1. spammytokens:0.953-+--our hammytokens:0.000-+--H*u:2014-03-12,
	0.000-+--H*UA:2014-03-12, 0.000-+--H*u:1.5.23, 0.000-+--H*UA:1.5.23,
	0.000-+--H*r:e35
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mail.vm.ouaza.com ([212.83.178.2])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1Xycnj-0006S8-07
	for [email protected]; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:39:15 +0000
Received: from x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e35:8a8d:92d0:50e3:6352:c5bf:52c6])
	by mail.vm.ouaza.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7E402056C;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:42:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: by x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A652DD24AE5; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:39:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:39:09 +0100
From: Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]>
To: Thomas Schmitt <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bug#731709: Preliminary patch for EFI boot support in live-build
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> How was the result from older xorriso better than from
> the newer one ?
> 
> Which particular version produced better, which version
> produced the worse image ?

It's not about a particular version of xorriso, but about the set of
command-line options that we use depending on the xorriso version:

+       #if [ "$XORRISO_VER" -le 10202 ]; then
+               # 1.2.2 shipping in wheezy
+               Echo "Using older EFI command line for xorriso $XORRISO_VER"
+               # Tell xorriso to create a secondary ElTorito boot record for the
+               # EFI bootloader
+               XORRISO_OPTIONS="${XORRISO_OPTIONS} -eltorito-alt-boot --efi-boot boot/efi.img"
+               # Add the efi image as a FAT partition too, so our CD image will
+               # also boot on a USB key (like isohybrid, just implemented
+               # differently)
+               XORRISO_OPTIONS="${XORRISO_OPTIONS} -append_partition 2 0x01 binary/boot/efi.img"
+       #else
+       #       Echo "Using newer EFI support in xorriso $XORRISO_VER"
+       #       XORRISO_OPTIONS="${XORRISO_OPTIONS} -eltorito-alt-boot -e boot/efi.img -no-emul-boot"
+       #       XORRISO_OPTIONS="${XORRISO_OPTIONS} -isohybrid-gpt-basdat"
+       #fi

In our tests, there are more computers where EFI boot works (from an USB key) when we use
"-eltorito-alt-boot --efi-boot boot/efi.img -append_partition 2 0x01 binary/boot/efi.img"
compared to when we use "-eltorito-alt-boot -e boot/efi.img -isohybrid-gpt-basdat".
In particular a number of macbook.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.