other 7 boot options are irrelevant to this.
If I boot the 6th option and install Debian it will install like you
described above. If I boot the 9th option and install Debian it will
create, among others, an efi partition mounted at /boot/efi that will
not be empty.
That's it! For m
PS: but booting is only possible over the BIOS menu.
What do you mean by "over the BIOS menu"?
When I start the computer, I press F10, the boot order. There I can
select what I want to boot. If I select the drive there, it's booting.
It has the highest priority anyway but it needs this
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:18:50PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 17 Jul 2025 at 12:42:29 (+0200), Flo wrote:
> > but booting is only possible over the BIOS menu.
>
> Like John Doe, no idea what this means.
I took it to mean that OP sees a firmware message like "F11 to see boot
options"
00"
>
> My other 7 boot options are irrelevant to this.
>
> If I boot the 6th option and install Debian it will install like you
> described above. If I boot the 9th option and install Debian it will create,
> among others, an efi partition mounted at /boot/efi that will no
whether EFI is enabled in the bios.
I just now inserted a Debian 12 installer usb and rebooted, making sure
to catch the bios boot device selection screen. It presented me with 9
boot options:
# 6 was "General UDisk 5.00"
# 9 was "UEFI: General UDisk 5.00"
My othe
On Thu 17 Jul 2025 at 12:42:29 (+0200), Flo wrote:
> I tried to reinstall: This time I said guided partitioning the whole
> disk but it only creates a 1M partiion for biosgrub and a big one
> (3TB) for everything else (+ swap). I have EFI enabled in BIOS and
> it's not the fir
On 7/17/25 12:42, Flo wrote:
On 7/17/25 03:22, Charles Curley wrote:
For me it looks like that the installer thinks that I am on a non EFI
system?
The installer could be rongly detecting that but I'd say it's unlikely.
debian-boot mailing list is specifically for d-i.
PS:
b
On 7/17/25 13:29, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:42:29PM +0200, Flo wrote:
For me it looks like that the installer thinks that I am on a non EFI
system?
Any ideas?
Yes, it isn't actually booting in EFI mode. I don't think this will be
an issue with Debian beca
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:42:29PM +0200, Flo wrote:
> For me it looks like that the installer thinks that I am on a non EFI
> system?
>
> Any ideas?
Yes, it isn't actually booting in EFI mode. I don't think this will be
an issue with Debian because by the time the Deb
On 7/17/25 03:22, Charles Curley wrote:
Thank you for your answer.
I tried to reinstall: This time I said guided partitioning the whole
disk but it only creates a 1M partiion for biosgrub and a big one (3TB)
for everything else (+ swap). I have EFI enabled in BIOS and it's not
the first
on
both drives):
# sfdisk -uS -l /dev/sda | sed -ne '/^Diskl/p;/^Device /,/sda3/p'
Disklabel type: gpt
Device StartEnd Sectors Size Type
/dev/sda12048 6143 4096 2M BIOS boot
/dev/sda261442097151 2091008 1021M EFI System
/dev/sd
Hi,
i wrote:
> > Would it be ok to install "grub-pc-bin" and "grub-efi-ia32-bin" ?
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Yes. That's exactly the design of the packaging here: the -bin
> packages contain the binary grub code that you're looking for, and
> grub-pc a
Thomas wrote:
>
>i am trying to reproduce a problem of grub-mkrescue. For that i need
>the directories
> /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc
> /usr/lib/grub/i386-efi
>alongside the already installed
> /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi
>in order to get an ISO for legacy BIOS and EFI to
Hi,
Dan Ritter wrote:
> Would downloading the deb packages, then un-ar'ing them in a tmp dir
> get you most of what you want?
Maybe. But i was looking for a way to create BIOS+EFI grub-mkrescue
ISOs by regular Debian means.
To answer my own question:
https://tracker.debian.org/med
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i am trying to reproduce a problem of grub-mkrescue. For that i need
> the directories
> /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc
> /usr/lib/grub/i386-efi
> alongside the already installed
> /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi
> in order to get an ISO for l
Hi,
i am trying to reproduce a problem of grub-mkrescue. For that i need
the directories
/usr/lib/grub/i386-pc
/usr/lib/grub/i386-efi
alongside the already installed
/usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi
in order to get an ISO for legacy BIOS and EFI together.
Gentoo and Arch obviously can have this
On 28.05.2025 00:11, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:14:03 +0500
"Alexander V. Makartsev" wrote:
On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
software needed to acc
Joe composed on 2025-05-27 20:11 (UTC+0100):
> The points to consider are that nobody knows what /boot/efi might need
> to contain in the future, in addition to the current files, and given
> modern drive sizes, the odd GB here or there is a rounding error. If
> you reach the point
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:14:03 +0500
"Alexander V. Makartsev" wrote:
> On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
> > Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
> > formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
> > software needed to
On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
software needed to access it, so no encryption or LVM. The size
recommendation for Linux is 1GB minimum. It's generally advis
lör 2025-05-24 klockan 17:59 + skrev Andy Smith:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Tommy Berglund wrote:
> > Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> > running Debian 12?
>
>
> So, you're going to have to
On 5/24/25 06:31, Tommy Berglund wrote:
Hi,
Translated by Google from Swedish
Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
running Debian 12?
How do I do it?
(parted) print devices
/dev/sda (2000GB)
/dev/sdb (2000GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-data (1888GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-www (4295MB
On 5/24/25 19:59, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Tommy Berglund wrote:
Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
running Debian 12?
Myself, I'd be asking what the purpose is of doing all this. If running
in legacy BIOS mode is wo
Hi,
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Tommy Berglund wrote:
> Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> running Debian 12?
The other reply you got covers making an ESP partition, but your main
problem is going to be that you also need to install grub in EF
On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:31:03 +0200
Tommy Berglund wrote:
> Hi,
> Translated by Google from Swedish
>
> Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> running Debian 12?
> How do I do it?
>
> (parted) print devices
> /dev/sda (2000GB)
> /dev
Hi,
Translated by Google from Swedish
Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
running Debian 12?
How do I do it?
(parted) print devices
/dev/sda (2000GB)
/dev/sdb (2000GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-data (1888GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-www (4295MB)
/dev/mapper/vg-vmail (10,7GB)
/dev/mapper
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 07:48:16AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 3/26/25 6:55 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
> > the traditional behvior of "su" (before it was broken in buster).
> >
>
> I don't understand the
Greg (HE12025-03-27):
> I'm certain sudo has its use cases, but all I do personally is su to
> root and update and upgrade my stable Bookworm using apt, so I feel no
> need to complexify the issue with sudo.
The fallacy in here being assuming, without stating it and without
justifying it that sudo
>
> "sudo -i" is meant to approximate the behavior of "su -". Before buster,
> nobody would have used that on a Debian system. It's horrible. The
> fact that people are now embracing it as a norm is even worse.
>
Why horrible?
David Wright writes:
> host!auser 09:57:47 /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/program-1.2.3$
> /bin/su --login
> Password:
> bullseye on /dev/sda5 toto05
> host 09:57:59 ~# cd /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/program-1.2.3
> host 09:58:08 /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/progra
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 02:55:11PM -, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> >> If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
> >
> > I agree.
> > If I understand what people want to accomplish by using command-line
> > options, I would likely have gone to System->Log Out ... and the
On 21/03/2025 20:38, J wrote:
But i must mention that *this passage from Debian Wiki seems incorrect*
Bind mount various virtual filesystems:
# for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc /sys /sys/firmware/efi/efivars /run;
do mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done
https://wiki.debian.org/GrubEFIReinstall
On 20/03/2025 03:22, J wrote:
But before this oopsie deletion I have saved as a back-up at least
something from /boot folder, or maybe even everything.
Copy files from backup to /boot and to the EFI system partition
EFI/debian/BOOTX64.CSV
EFI/debian/fbx64.efi
EFI/debian/grub.cfg
EFI/debian
Greg Wooledge wrote:
...
> Maybe. If you haven't created an /etc/default/su file, then something
> like this:
>
> $ su
> # adduser richard
>
> may fail. You could work around it in various ways (e.g. explicitly
> typing out /usr/sbin/adduser richard).
>
> My recommendation is to create a
Max Nikulin (HE12025-03-28):
> Approximately a decade ago I
> noticed that new entries were not added to some history file, I do not
> remember if it was .bash_history or for some other tool, but the owner of
> the file was root. It was the reason why I
On 26/03/2025 18:55, Greg Wooledge wrote:
"sudo -i" is meant to approximate the behavior of "su -". Before buster,
nobody would have used that on a Debian system. It's horrible. The
fact that people are now embracing it as a norm is even worse.
It seems I have to clarify why I suggested name
irtual filesystems:
# for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc /sys /sys/firmware/efi/efivars /run; do
> mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done
https://wiki.debian.org/GrubEFIReinstall#Using_the_rEFInd_rescue_media
*I had to use*
sudo mount --bind /dev /mnt/dev
> sudo mount --bind /dev/pts /mnt/dev/pts
> sudo mount -
On 2025-03-28, David Wright wrote:
>
> As end-users are the people that computers are built and run
> for, I don't know why you'd find people's use of the term
> "slightly pejorative". (I assume you aren't calling out me
> in particular.)
I was calling myself out, not you. You have always been he
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 15:46:15 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> $ su
> # make install
>
> Whoopsie! The Makefile just pwned you.
That's a COMPLETELY separate discussion. Obviously I was referring to
software from reputable sources.
> $ make DESTDIR=/tmp/i install
> $ sud
On Thu 27 Mar 2025 at 22:14:03 (-0400), Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 08:29:50PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > Excellent, that solves the problem for those on old terminals or
> > lacking copy/paste. As for me, I'll continue to use /bin/su --login,
> > as I have for nigh on three
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 08:29:50PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
Excellent, that solves the problem for those on old terminals or
lacking copy/paste. As for me, I'll continue to use /bin/su --login,
as I have for nigh on three decades, so that I land in my preferred,
consistent cwd, /root.
su -
do
On Thu 27 Mar 2025 at 17:05:56 (-), Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-26, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > As posted earlier today, a file in sudoers.d/ makes trivial admin
> > tasks like monitoring and logging easier, particularly where the
> > programs concerned can cause damage if the wrong options are us
On Thu 27 Mar 2025 at 13:58:10 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 12:48:35 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > It could be argued that it would be simple enough to communicate
> > the user's cwd to root, as a workaround, so that it didn't have to
> > be retyped.
>
> You know what d
On 2025-03-26, David Wright wrote:
>
> As posted earlier today, a file in sudoers.d/ makes trivial admin
> tasks like monitoring and logging easier, particularly where the
> programs concerned can cause damage if the wrong options are used.
I'm certain sudo has its use cases, but all I do persona
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 12:48:35 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> It could be argued that it would be simple enough to communicate
> the user's cwd to root, as a workaround, so that it didn't have to
> be retyped.
You know what does that for you? sudo -s. Or su if you've configured
it with a one-lin
On Thu 27 Mar 2025 at 12:23:26 (+0200), Anssi Saari wrote:
> David Wright writes:
>
> > host!auser 09:57:47 /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/program-1.2.3$
> > /bin/su --login
> > Password:
> > bullseye on /dev/sda5 toto05
> > host 09:57:59 ~# cd /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/p
Anssi Saari wrote:
> David Wright writes:
>
> > host!auser 09:57:47 /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/program-1.2.3$
> > /bin/su --login
> > Password:
> > bullseye on /dev/sda5 toto05
> > host 09:57:59 ~# cd /somewhere/that/is/obnoxiously/long/program-1.2.3
> > host 09:58:08 /somew
On 3/26/25 6:55 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[SNIP]
I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
the traditional behvior of "su" (before it was broken in buster).
I don't understand the reference to some "brokenness" of "su".
I've not closely followed this thread so I may
On Wed 26 Mar 2025 at 16:37:41 (-), Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > I assumed it was effectively the same as power down and then logging in
> > as root on power-up.
>
> It is. But it's unnecessary and dangerous to run your entire DE as root.
> Or maybe you log in t
Greg Wooledge (HE12025-03-26):
> This caused ALL KINDS of problems. People would do things like:
>
> $ su
> # apt update
> # apt install somepkg
>
> And the postinstall script for somepkg would fail because it couldn't
> find commands that are in /sbin or /usr/sbin, because those dir
So, in most cases* sudo -s* is better? Any downsides?
ср, 26 мар. 2025 г. в 16:10, Greg Wooledge :
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 07:48:16 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > On 3/26/25 6:55 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
> > > the trad
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 07:55:33AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[...]
> I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
> the traditional behvior of "su" (before it was broken in buster).
>
> "sudo -i" is meant to approximate the behavior of "su -". Before buster,
> nobody w
On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> I assumed it was effectively the same as power down and then logging in
> as root on power-up.
It is. But it's unnecessary and dangerous to run your entire DE as root.
Or maybe you log in to the console and use startx to run Mate?
At any rate, I do follo
On 2025-03-26, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> Does this "brokenness" of "su" have any potential effect on my usage?
>
> Maybe. If you haven't created an /etc/default/su file, then something
> like this:
If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
I noticed when I finally erased Stretch and installed Boo
On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
>
> I agree.
> If I understand what people want to accomplish by using command-line
> options, I would likely have gone to System->Log Out ... and then logged
> in as root.
Not recommended.
On Wed 26 Mar 2025 at 10:03:59 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 3/26/25 9:55 AM, Greg wrote:
> > On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > > > If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > > If I understand what people want to accomplish by using command-line
> > > options
On Wed 26 Mar 2025 at 16:24:21 (+0300), J wrote:
> ср, 26 мар. 2025 г. в 16:10, Greg Wooledge :
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 07:48:16 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > On 3/26/25 6:55 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
> > > > the t
On 3/26/25 9:55 AM, Greg wrote:
On 2025-03-26, Richard Owlett wrote:
If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
I agree.
If I understand what people want to accomplish by using command-line
options, I would likely have gone to System->Log Out ... and then logged
in as root.
Not recommended.
On 3/26/25 9:04 AM, Greg wrote:
On 2025-03-26, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Does this "brokenness" of "su" have any potential effect on my usage?
Maybe. If you haven't created an /etc/default/su file, then something
like this:
If he hasn't noticed yet, I doubt it.
I agree.
If I understand what
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 04:19:37PM +0300, J wrote:
> >
> > > work with* root?* I will try to test.
> >
> > I fully expect it to, yes.
> >
>
> Oh, yes, it works. I just had to use *sudo su* and not not
I think you never need "sudo su". "sudo -i" and "sudo -s" will do your
bidding, depending on you
>
> > work with* root?* I will try to test.
>
> I fully expect it to, yes.
>
Oh, yes, it works. I just had to use *sudo su* and not not
*su - *
Also it's bad that Wiki doesn't clarify* how to* 'boot the rescue system
including the kernel option "efi=runti
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 07:48:16 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 3/26/25 6:55 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to
> > the traditional behvior of "su" (before it was broken in buster).
>
> I don't understand the reference to some "brok
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:23:38 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 02:15:03PM +0300, J wrote:
> > And i thought *sudo -i*, you speaking about, is something like
> > *--interactive*, which is not, how i see now...
>
> The long form is "--login", not interactive. But the "-i"
root, until you leave it with "exit" (or shorter: CTRL-D), which
puts you back where you were before.
> Will this command (
>
> for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc /sys /sys/firmware/efi/efivars /run; do
> mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done)
>
>
> work with* root?* I will try to test.
I fully expect it to, yes.
Cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
v /dev/pts /proc /sys /sys/firmware/efi/efivars /run; do
mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done)
work with* root?* I will try to test.
If somebody is going to add a hint concerning sudo to wiki, please, make
>
I can try, but I lack a lot of knowledge to do that.
There were also some minor problems which I solved with *apt update/upgrade*
> while being in *chroot*.
>
In particular, there was for some reason no internet connection after I
booted to the restored system. Something wrong was with firmware and/or
initramfs i guess.
On 25/03/2025 19:47, J wrote:
Notice that the page suggests "# for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc "
so it is assumed that users should run
$ sudo -i
sudo *SH -c '...' -* as mentioned above. But it is not written in WIki.
In my opinion, "sudo -i" might be added to the wiki articles. I wo
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:25:01AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 25/03/2025 19:47, J wrote:
> > Notice that the page suggests "# for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc "
> > so it is assumed that users should run
> >
> > $ sudo -i
> >
> > sudo *SH -c '...' -* as mentioned above. But it is not
OK, probably the bash script will run fine.
>
> > https://wiki.debian.org/GrubEFIReinstall#Using_the_rEFInd_rescue_media
>
> In the context of bind-mounts the link is confusing.
>
It's EFI Reinstall, not */boot *reinstall, my only problem is that
"# for i in /dev /dev/pts /pro
On 25/03/2025 02:40, J wrote:
user@debian:~$ sudo for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc /sys /sys/firmware/efi/
efivars /run; do mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done
Notice that the page suggests "# for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc "
so it is assumed that users should run
$ sudo -i
# # more commands g
> sudo sh -c '...'
>
Didn't know such a thing. Wasn't mention in the wiki.
Have you considered doing something crazy like creating the mount points?
>
Can't say so. I have fixed my problem a few days ago (see above about
mounting), now i am discussing with Max if Wiki is correct.
https://wiki.d
I have rechecked.
It doesn't work with sudo also.
Not in a one line, not when i tried to make line breaks with \, not in a
bash script.
user@debian:~$ sudo for i in /dev /dev/pts /proc /sys
/sys/firmware/efi/efivars /run; do mount -B $i /mnt/$i; done
bash: syntax error near unexpected toke
first installation.
But before this oopsie deletion I have saved as a back-up at least
something from /boot folder, or maybe even everything. There is a Microsoft
folder, /grub folder with bootx64.efi and bootx64.efi.grb (though EMPTY!)
and /Debian folder with shimx64.efi etc…
I have tried to fix the
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:06:34 +0100
Hans wrote:
> > "It shows" ??? What shows? How?
>
> See:
>
> root@protheus3:~# ls -la /boot/efi/
> insgesamt 7
> drwx-- 4 root root 1024 1. Jan 1970 .
> drwxrwxrwx 5 root root 4096 19. Jan 20:28 ..
> drwx--
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:44:25 -0500
Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
>
> Lastly, there's that efibootmgr package. I installed it while battling
> my past fails but never used it. I've seen it mentioned here at
> Debian- User so someone here likely knows if and/or how it might help
> somehow.
>
>
You pr
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:57 AM Hans wrote:
>
>
> I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything is worḱing fine, but I do
> not understand everything. Please allow me to ask:
>
> 1. In /etc/fstab there is my entry
>
> UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatu
Hi folks,
rethinking and some checks showed me the solution.
In /etc I found a file "fstab.boot.readonly" with the same content as fstab. I
suppose, this file was also read during boot and as there was an entry for efi
missing, it might create one. Not sure about it!
Moving any
Hi Charles,
> So far, so good. However, please show us the complete command and
> output by copy and paste. E.g.:
>
> root@peregrine:~# grep efi /etc/fstab
> # /boot/efi was on /dev/nvme0n1p1 during installation
> UUID=91AE-3A24 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0
Hans wrote:
>
> See, what I mean? /dev/nvme0n1p1 is mounted twice! But df does not show it!
> That looks strange for me.
This isn't strange, this is intended.
Read the df manual and look for the -a option:
"include pseudo, duplicate, inaccessible file systems"
Best regards,
Kl
80927440% /run/shm
tmp8092744 4 80927401% /tmp
/dev/nvme0n1p5 3764408 81732 34709643% /boot
/dev/nvme0n1p1 98304 31927 66377 33% /efi
/dev/mapper/nvme0n1p10_crypt 28644260 12378060 14785804 46
On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 14:20 +0100, Hans wrote:
Apologies, this is (another) long email. I tried to cover my experiences
that were tied to that directory.
tl;dr
How did you install GRUB and/or EFI? It might be as simple as that.
> I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything
my entry
> UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0 1
Looks about normal.
>
> and df -h shows
>
> /dev/nvme0n1p1 96M 32M 65M 33% /boot/efi
>
> which is correct so far.
So far, so good. However, please show us the complete co
Hans composed on 2025-01-22 14:20 (UTC+0100):
> I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything is worḱing fine, but I do
> not understand
> everything. Please allow me to ask:
> 1. In /etc/fstab there is my entry
> UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0
Hi folks,
I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything is worḱing fine, but I do
not understand
everything. Please allow me to ask:
1. In /etc/fstab there is my entry
UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0 1
and df -h shows
/dev/nvme0n1p1 96M
other datum: I was recently able to install the weekly netinst build
on a Virtual Manager/qemu EFI machine.
As Virtual Manager/qemu EFI run on Bookworm, you might try it. To
install to an EFI vm, you must build the vm as an EFI vm.
https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot/VirtualMachine#Alternatively:_u
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Łukasz Kalamłacki wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Did you guys tried to run installation of Debian 12.6.0 from netinst on
> VirtualBox from current Debian SID in EFI mode?
>
Hi Lukasz
Firstly: Virtualbox is in Sid (and nowhere else now) becau
Hi,
Did you guys tried to run installation of Debian 12.6.0 from netinst on
VirtualBox from current Debian SID in EFI mode?
I was able to install Debian 12.6.0 only in non EFI mode on VB.
Do you confirm my finding?
Best,
Łukasz
Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> Is there some advantage in me editing one of the files in the EFI
> partition as opposed to just putting the grub serial directives in
> /boot/grub/grub.cfg of the ISO?
None that i know of.
Editing /efi/debian/grub.cfg of the EFI partition filesystem would ju
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:42:05PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > Should I just edit that into $iso_root/boot/grub/grub.cfg and repack
> > the ISO?
>
> If altering the EFI partition is not viable, then surely: Yes.
Is there some advantage in me edi
Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> Currently when I add the Debian 12 netinst ISO as a virtual media it
> EFI boots grub, not isolinux,
That's because Debian ISOs advertise a EFI System Partition with GRUB
initial boot equipment:
$ xorriso -indev debian-12.2.0-amd64-
ement controller that adds virtual media from ISOs, but I would
still like to see that install over the IPMI serial.
Currently when I add the Debian 12 netinst ISO as a virtual media it
EFI boots grub, not isolinux, so the output of grub only goes to the
graphical terminal (a web interface of the manag
Hi,
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Tested with debian-12.6.0-amd64-netinst.iso on QEMU+OVMF and real hardware:
> (proc) (memdisk) (cd0) (cd0,apple2) (cd0,apple1) (cd0,msdos2)
I wonder from where (cd0,apple2) comes. A Debian amd64 netinst ISO has a
single APM partition which marks the EFI El
two
> different nvmes)
> /dev/nvme0n1p3 = /dev/nvme1n1p3 = 7mb 8300 (Linux RAID)
lsblk gives a nice readable version of this info.
> I am currently using /dev/nvme*1*n1p2 as /boot/efi and groub-efi is
> installed there.
>
> I like to also install grub-efi on /dev/nvme*0*n1p1 t
/nvme1n1p3 = 7mb 8300 (Linux RAID)
I am currently using /dev/nvme*1*n1p2 as /boot/efi and groub-efi is
installed there.
I like to also install grub-efi on /dev/nvme*0*n1p1 to mimic RAID1. My
Google search does not give me a clear way to do it. There are a lot
explanation on how certain things
le202302/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.fdf -smp 2 -m 2G /dev/sda
>This will just give me a QEMU error message ("could not load PC BIOS"). Is it
>possible to boot an EFI system with QEMU without downloading a custom firmware
>file, i.e. is there a Debian package providing this functionality?
Valentin Caracalla (12023-04-25):
> thanks a lot for the tip! However, I'm a complete novice when it comes to
> running custom firmware in QEMU. I just tried the following:
>
> 1.: Download the latest EDK2 release from Github:
I could boot a VM with a UEFI bootloader using only files packaged by
Hello Steve,
thanks a lot for the tip! However, I'm a complete novice when it comes to
running custom firmware in QEMU. I just tried the following:
1.: Download the latest EDK2 release from Github:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/archive/refs/tags/edk2-stable202302.tar.gz
2.: Extract the OVM
mick.crane wrote:
...
> on reboot after installation of bookworm PC says no OS found.
you'd have to check the installer logs in /var/log/installer
(for that install) to see where it failed.
> Changed Dell f2/f12 menu to boot legacy CDrom and bookworm installation
> succeeds, has automagically
On 24/04/2023 01:38, Charles Curley wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:34:03 - (UTC)
Curt wrote:
Install grml-rescueboot
I just tried it. It may work with a grml CD ISO; I didn't try it. The
code builds the grub.cfg entry correctly, and that works. But grub
refused to boot the debian netinst
On 2023-04-23, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:34:03 - (UTC)
> Curt wrote:
>
>> Install grml-rescueboot
>
> I just tried it. It may work with a grml CD ISO; I didn't try it. The
> code builds the grub.cfg entry correctly, and that works. But grub
> refused to boot the debian ne
1 - 100 of 312 matches
Mail list logo