https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784
--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> There's a couple of things you probably want to do here:
>
> * The systemd-boot-unsigned and systemd-boot packages should have their efi
> architectures as suffixes, similar to shim and grub
Hmm, but why? I don't see any guideline that'd require this, and it makes
things more complicated.
There's no guidelines for EFI stuff in Fedora because nobody expected anyone to
do more than shim+grub. The only reason I know (outside of the RH bootloader
people) how all this works is because I spent two years doing research on the
whole thing.
This split makes it possible for multiple EFI variants to be installed at once
(e.g. ia32 + x64, etc.).
> * Since this package provides the signed versions, please add
> systemd-boot-signed-%efi_arch Provides (shim does this too)
What about 'Provides:systemd-boot-signed(%{efi_arch)) = %version-%release' ?
Sure, I'm fine with that. It's inconsistent with the others, but meh...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784