Re: ppc64el Trixie Alpha 1 /boot may be ext2 not ext4
Hi again,
Am 12. Januar 2025 19:17:19 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>:
>On 12/01/2025 at 16:29, Holger Wansing wrote:
>> Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 +0100):
>>>
>>> I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
>>> only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or
>>> without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using
>>> guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
>>
>> Ok, so that's fine.
>> With this fix in place, there is at least the LVM partitioning scheme
>> (with or without encryption), which works out of the box with default
>> choice.
>> And assuming we got no complains before about this situation on this machine,
>> I guess it's fine this way.
>
>There is too much inconsistency here for me to say it is fine.
"Is fine" was rather meant as "ok, I understand what you meant".
>On one hand, the recipes for ppc64el create an optional ext2 /boot partition only with LVM, which means that booting with Petitboot will fail if the user chooses guided partitioning without LVM.
>
>On the other hand, the recipes for arm64 uselessly create a mandatory ext4 /boot partition even without LVM.
>
>In between, the recipes for amd64 create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM and the default recipes create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases.
>
>Either a common boot loader for a given architecture does not support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes for this architecture should create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases (like default recipes), or all common boot loaders are known to support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes should create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM (like recipes for amd64).
What you describe would be the perfect world.
But what we have here leads to a trade-off anyway.
We cannot do it perfectly right for all cases.
Holger
--
Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3
Reply to: