On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 10:04:33 BST Mick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 22:38, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> OK, 'bootctl --help' and 'man bootctl' ought to show if the installed
> version comes with the full list of options or not.
Neither of them says what should happen if an option is not sup
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 22:38, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 18:47:25 BST Mick wrote:
>
> > As I understand it this ID must be the ID bootctl itself reports.
> > However, earlier bootctl versions do not have this set-default ID
> > subcommand. If you run bootctl with no argum
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 18:47:25 BST Mick wrote:
> As I understand it this ID must be the ID bootctl itself reports.
> However, earlier bootctl versions do not have this set-default ID
> subcommand. If you run bootctl with no arguments does it show up?
No, it behaves the same as 'bootctl stat
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 16:19, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 15:32:27 BST Mick wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:18, Mick wrote:
> > > When using Secure Boot the UEFI firmware check the binaries to be
> > > loaded have been signed by Microsoft. The 'SHA256 verified' messag
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 15:32:27 BST Mick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:18, Mick wrote:
> > When using Secure Boot the UEFI firmware check the binaries to be
> > loaded have been signed by Microsoft. The 'SHA256 verified' message
> > indicates the systemd-boot binary is signed using a key
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:18, Mick wrote:
> When using Secure Boot the UEFI firmware check the binaries to be
> loaded have been signed by Microsoft. The 'SHA256 verified' message
> indicates the systemd-boot binary is signed using a key which is
> ultimately signed by Microsoft and is contained
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:01, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 10:47:59 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:05:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > Are you setting UEFI to boot from systemd-bootx64.efi or from the
> > > > kernel image? If the former, you don't
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 10:47:59 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:05:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Are you setting UEFI to boot from systemd-bootx64.efi or from the
> > > kernel image? If the former, you don't need a copy of the kernel in
> > > the ESP.
> >
> > I could
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:05:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Are you setting UEFI to boot from systemd-bootx64.efi or from the
> > kernel image? If the former, you don't need a copy of the kernel in
> > the ESP.
>
> I could run some tests to find out, but after throwing so much time and
> effo
On Monday, 30 September 2019 21:01:28 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Are you setting UEFI to boot from systemd-bootx64.efi or from the kernel
> image? If the former, you don't need a copy of the kernel in the ESP.
I could run some tests to find out, but after throwing so much time and effort
into re
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:06:17 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> This morning I decided to bend with the wind. I let bootctl create
> those directories again, then copied the latest kernel image into
> /boot/EFI/Linux/. On running bootctl install again, everything worked
> as expected. All I had to do
On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 09:50:44 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Right. After spending most of the last 10 days and some nights wrestling
> with the beast, I've got it fixed at last.
Except that I was wrong: I hadn't fixed it. I've just spent another two days
with an unbootable system finding
12 matches
Mail list logo
