On 2015-09-01 14:23, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Tomasz Torcz <to...@pipebreaker.pl>
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:47:57PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 01/09/15 17:21, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
AIUI, /boot/efi also makes it a bit easier to have the ESP remain
unmounted or read-only when not in active use, which is good for its
own
robustness; a system crash corrupting an unmounted partition is less
likely than corrupting a mounted filesystem.
That's why systemd's generator creates automount unit (with timeout)
for /boot.
Right, the ESP at /boot is never mounted unless it is accessed.
So, properly, we shouldn't have separate boot and EFI partitions? I
generally separate them so that I can have my boot partition on ext4
(contains only kernels & initrds), but if I'm not mistaken, the EFI
partition needs to be FAT32. Hence, two separate partitions. The other
benefit I've seen is that it keeps other operating systems (in a
multi-boot environment) from clobbering anything in /boot. Is this not
the correct way to implement this? If not, how can the expected mount
points be preserved while allowing for separate partitions? I prefer not
to use FAT for anything if I can help it.
This is my current setup:
/ - root partition, btrfs
/boot - boot partition, ext4
/boot/efi - EFI partition, FAT32
(FWIW, I've been using rEFInd as my EFI bootloader, which looks for
/boot/efi/EFI during installation.)
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
