>
>
> > On 18 Jan 2019, at 19:57, Lev Serebryakov <l...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 18.01.2019 20:13, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> >>> Also, there are same problems with GPT/BIOS setup (which uses GPT but
> >>> legacy boot) :-(
> >>>
> >>
> >> What same problems? I don't think we've touched how gptboot has handed off
> >> to /boot/loader in a long, long time. It there's an issue here, it's a
> >> different issue.
> > Ok, strictly speaking it is different issue with same "high-level"
> > description: pmbr/gptboot has less features than simplest oldest boot0.
> >
> > pmbr/gptbood doesn't have any way to select partition to boot from, as
> > "boot0" has. No, setting "nextboot" from live system is not a solution.
> > I speak about NanoBSD situation when there is tow partitions, both
> > bootable, one marked as "active" ("bootme" on GPT parlance) but it is
> > completely broken and user need to boot from other one form very
> > beginning. This task is trivially solved by "boot0" in pure-MBR case.
> > What about GPT/Legacy and GPT/UEFI?
> >
> > --
> > // Lev Serebryakov
> >
>
> errm.. you press a key and enter device and or loader path. if it is not
> working - the code is there to be fixed.
> GPT does not have the concept of active partition.
It certainly does, it is called the attribute bootme,
and the above correctly states that.
man gptboot
>
> My suggestion would be to walk all those boot programs and document them,
> then see what features are possible to bring to sync.
The gptboot use of bootme and bootonce are well documented.
--
Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
