similar to: /boot on a separate partition?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and >> file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the >> mount process must make sure they're mounted in that order, or

At Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:58:07 -0400 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and > > file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the > > mount process must make sure they're mounted in that

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and > file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the > mount process must make sure they're mounted in that order, or there's > failure. I've never once had a problem with nested mounts. Is this a problem people

Do most people today have /boot on a separate partition, or do they (you) have it on the / partition ? -- Timothy Murphy gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54:07AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > This makes no sense to me. rEFInd dynamically discovers linux kernel > updates, it doesn't need any regular configuration file changes. Once > you configure it, it's a static configuration file unlike grub.cfg or > extlinux.conf. > > So why do you need /boot/efi persistently mounted? You don't even need

hi guys I've one box where I just yesterday upgraded Centos. I wonder if that kernel upgrade process might somewhat troublesome. After that upgrade UEFI boot fails with: Failed to set MokListRT: Invalid Parameter Something has gone seriously wrong: import_mok_state() failed : Invalid Parameter Has anybody seen that? And maybe know to fix it? many thanks, L.

FWIW, we don't use a separate partition and haven't had any issues (we do set up / as a separate partition only 5GB large). We have over 150 systems that have been chugging along with many versions of CentOS this way for years. We only use ext3,4 filesystems though. And no volume manager. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:42 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Timothy Murphy wrote:

Hi, Curt Brune wrote: > At the risk of contributing to the 'urban legends' and the 'salads' I apologize to all communities who hand out correct info. :)) > http://lukeluo.blogspot.com/2013/06/grub-how-to-2-make-boot-able-iso-with.html Well, the excursion on CD-DA is off topic and i would describe many aspects in different terms. Nice to see that at least one person read

On 20 Mar 2023 at 0:00, marteg via Syslinux wrote: > > Greetings! > > If I understand everything correctly, the last release of syslinux > supports UEFI, but it can't load another EFI application in this mode, so > practically only linux kernel can be bootloaded. Unfortunately, I have a > need to dualboot windows and linux with UEFI, and this holds me back from >

> The most annoying thing (to me) is that it doesn't boot at all on > Legacy OS mode (MBR), while it should... :-/ No, it shouldn't. If you are initially booting in (U)EFI mode (into rEFInd, or some EFI shell or any other EFI boot loader or EFI boot manager), then generally speaking you are expected to boot in EFI mode. But some (U)EFI firmware _might_ be able to

Greetings! If I understand everything correctly, the last release of syslinux supports UEFI, but it can't load another EFI application in this mode, so practically only linux kernel can be bootloaded. Unfortunately, I have a need to dualboot windows and linux with UEFI, and this holds me back from using this amazing piece of software. Have there since been any progress regarding this

This is a quick recovery and fix for the machines rendered unbootable after the grub2/shim yum update. It is written for CentOS 8.2.2004 but similar should work for any CentOS 8 or 7 as long as you get the correct shim file, that is, the one from the latest installation media. I am running on an x86_64 architecture (see uname -i). Please use the correct shim file for your architecture

Hi, > 6. Renamed back /EFI/boot/bootx64.efi to /EFI/boot/syslinux.efi, just > to be sure. The "Default fallback loader on 32 MiB device" entry has > changed to "Syslinux on 32 MiB device". How the hell does it know that it is "Syslinux" ? The same file content does not cause that name if it is presented under the default name. Does EFI just guess

Hello, is there a way to start a efi-application (bios update tool) from syslinux ? best regards Johann

Am 15.09.2015 um 17:12 schrieb Keith Keller <kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>: > On 2015-09-15, wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote: >> >> Searching the web, I see very few possibilities to install a recent (I >> need gnome2) GNU/Linux distro on such hardware. I gave Linux MintPPC 11 >> (http://www.mintppc.org/content/list-macs) a try, but the netinstall

Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote: > Using a consistent version / commit of gnu-efi makes sense. Otherwise, > the resulting behavior could be changing (or the build might fail for > some reason), according to whichever version / commit is "freely" used. As an active package maintainer I strongly believe in idea that software should use

For the sake of the discussion. Screenshots not included due size limit. ----- Forwarded message from syslinux-owner at zytor.com ----- Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:09:50 -0700 from: syslinux-owner at zytor.com To: syslinux-owner at zytor.com Subject: Syslinux post from piranna at gmail.com requires approval List: Syslinux at zytor.com From: piranna at gmail.com Subject: Re:

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:20, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > > My understanding is CentOS doesn't really support dual-boot anyway, > whereas Fedora does. Nope. CentOS 5, 6 and 7 all support dual-boot. -- Jonathan Billings

Am 15.09.2015 um 19:09 schrieb Keith Keller <kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>: > On 2015-09-15, Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On 2015-09-15, wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote: >> >> this also helps to boot >> >> http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/ > > rEFInd will work on EFI-based Macs, but not on old PPC

As of the latest updates to anaconda and grub2 for Fedora 18, it is now possible to install with /boot as a btrfs subvolume. The way that grub2 is handling this is the "reach down" to the files it needs as if the subvolume was a directory. Is this OK? At this point I am not worried about snapshots or any other complexities. If the subvolume name is known. should grub2 be able to