On Mi, 10.05.23 11:20, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote: > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one?
Well, I don't really think we have a reason to believe that a 1G ESP was any more problematic than a 0.1G ESP. I am not aware of any reports, and given that FAT32 is mandated by UEFI since basically always, I think there's no immediate reason to believe we are in trouble. I think the only reasonable approach here is to pick a larger default in a development distro, and collect feedback. > Can't we reduce the number of kernels by having *only* one UKI and a > rescue one that can be used to restore the previous working UKI from > /root if the active one fails? I'd kill the rescue concept as a separate kernel. Pre-compiled UKIs provided by Fedora should be comprehensive and suitable enough to be rescue images, I don't see why we need a second version of that. The only difference between a rescue boot and a regular boot should be one of parameterization, not of picking different kernel. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
