On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 3:05 PM Jonas Lochmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 02:01:21PM +0100, schrieb Paul Spooren: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I read this twice, and still don't know what this patch is trying to > > > accomplish. What problem does this solve, or what new feature does > > > this allow? I am missing a sentence or two explaining what the patch > > > does and why. > > Maybe you read it twice because I posted it twice? I am sorry about > that, but the first version had a small mistake that blocked updating > the disk UUID after updates.
No, I definitely meant I read the text twice to see if I missed something. > > > From my understanding it’s much simpler/smaller than GRUB, so maybe > > something inline with the efforts of OpenWrt? Sure, but we shouldn't need to guess why something is added, that should be spelt out in the commit message. > > Yes, that's the main motivation. Unlike grub, it only supports UEFI > boot but this is the only boot method supported by recent x86 hardware. > The legacy boot procedure is relevant only in virtual machines but > because this implementation uses (like the OpenWrt grub integration) > the fallback path, no specific values in nvram variables are required > so that UEFI booting works without effort - like the legacy boot. The motivation should be part of the commit message, and currently it isn't. Like is this a potential replacement for something, or does it something different? Are there any drawbacks? etc. > > > > And you can probably trim the history part, e.g. I don't think it > > > matters much for understanding that it used to be called gummiboot, as > > > entertaining the name is. > > > > I found this rather helpful, since much documentation/form posts out there > > point to Gummiboot. > > Another thing is that gummiboot is packaged in the openwrt "packages" > repository/feed. I don't know for what it is used (if at all), because > there are no images that I know of that use it. > > Writing this detail (gummiboot is now systemd-boot) into the commit > message makes it easier to state a reason why gummiboot can be removed > from the repository once this was merged. Actually, I tried using > gummiboot first and it resulted in a black screen only. I assume it > still works at older hardware. Maybe then this should be also mentioned in the commit message? Especially since there are 0 mentions of gummiboot in the core OpenWrt repository. I tried to understand this commit from the perspective of here, and since gummiboot isn't mentioned (and used) there, the information seemed irrelevant for core OpenWrt. Best regards, Jonas _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
