Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: >> Relatedly, I think the way to build a 'multi-grub' is to have one >> expression for each supported grub platform, and then consolidate >> out/lib/grub from each. > > So in essence, GRUB itself supports only one platform at a time?
AFAICT yes. Gentoo works around this by running the build for each user-specified platform and combining the outputs. Most other distros just carry separate grub-pc and grub-efi packages. >>> Now there are things I didn’t quite get. Apparently you’re supposed to >>> have a /boot/efi as a vfat partition, and ‘grub-install’ is supposed to >>> detect it and install the EFI stuff, or so I thought (info "(grub) >>> Installing GRUB using grub-install"). >>> >>> However, ‘grub-install’ still seems to be installing for “i386-pc” >>> instead of EFI. >>> >>> What am I missing? >> >> IIRC grub-install will detect and install for the running mode (pc, efi, >> etc). So in a classic chicken-and-egg situation, you need to be booted >> with UEFI mode for grub to select the correct installation platform! > > My understanding is that it would install for UEFI if it fines > /boot/efi or if --efi-directory is passed. I'm not so sure, but it's been a while since I played around with this. At least building the 'gnu/system/install.scm' image works fine when passing --efi-directory (see the bottom two patches from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-12/txtchTym4QVKr.txt ), and I think it would choose i386-pc even if x86_64-efi was available since the VM boots in BIOS mode. Tangentially, I'm not aware of any way to build a "hybrid" ISO image using only grub. I've started work on packaging syslinux/isolinux which is what Debian uses for their hybrid UEFI/BIOS install image. > BTW, as far as I’m concerned, most of the other patches are ready: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-11/msg00303.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-11/msg00304.html > > Could you push them? Done. > The remaining issue is how to run fsck for vfat. > > Currently I still have a preference for something like what I suggested > at: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-12/msg00095.html > > Thoughts? This approach looks better than the one I started working on. It's not clear to me how to pass the device to these procedures, or how 'check-file-system' will know which checker to use. We should try to have this in place before 0.13 :-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature