Hmm, I thought Windows creates a 512 MB ESP by default (as per MS's own recommendations)?
(With both Windows and two Arch kernels I've yet to run out of space on a 200 MB one. I guess it's different for Ubuntu which likes to hoard more kernel packages than it can fit...) On Thu, Jun 2, 2016, 04:53 Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote on 30/05/16 17:47: > >> hence an acceptable alternatively might be to > >> introduce /efi and mount the esp there, and simply not have /boot on > >> legacy free systems. > > > > This might be the pragmatic way to get this schema more widely adopted. > > kernel-install could be modified to detect which is used and copy the > > kernel to the appropriate directory (or copy it to both). > > > > I really like the ESP as /boot approach but it's hard to get people to > > buy into it :( > > Well it's a non-starter for dual boot because the existing Windows and > OS X ESP's are too small to host kernels, and I'm not aware of any > installer that'll create an additional ESP or grow an existing one. > > Next, it rather seems like rearranging the deck chairs. There's no > major advantage. The boot manager gets a bit smaller but now it's > mandatory to put the kernel and initramfs on the ESP, unlike any other > OS. You get to drop the 500MB ext4 /boot, but now you have to have a > 500MB or possibly larger, FAT32 /boot, in order to hold 4 kernels and > initramfs's. When those initramfs's are the nohostonly or reproducible > variety, they're currently 50MB on Fedora 24. So > kernel+system.map+initramfs = ~60MB which is ~60x bigger than most > boot managers. And some use cases will want posix permissions and > xattr support, which is lacking on FAT; and still others that will > want the initramfs at least on an encrypted volume. > > It think it'd be better to put an EFI wrapper around the GRUB fs > modules, so any UEFI boot manager inherits the ability to read > anything GRUB already supports: cryptoluks, mdraid, lvm, btrfs, xfs, > ext4, etc. No one actually needs to reinvent the fs wheel for each > UEFI boot manager. > > But I do agree with the criticism of nested mounts, e.g. /boot/efi, as > well as persistently mounting the ESP, which is also > > -- > Chris Murphy > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
