The link to documentation on freedesktop is currently giving a 503 and providing "guru meditation". Does anybody happen to be a guru and available to meditate on XID: 890648862? --cfr (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Mount /boot and efivarfs
Now systemd automatic detect ESP and mount it as
/boot. Also systemd mount
efivarfs. You no longer mount
/boot manually or add entry in the
/etc/fstab. If you try mount
/boot manually or from
gummiboot install command will fail.
# findmnt /boot TARGET SOURCE FSTYPE OPTIONS /boot systemd-1 autofs rw,relatime,fd=36,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct # findmnt efivarfs TARGET SOURCE FSTYPE OPTIONS /sys/firmware/efi/efivars efivarfs efivarfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime
Please add this notes to the Article.
- ". If you try mount /boot manually or from /etc/fstab gummiboot install command will fail." That's just not true, gummiboot install should work fine either way. What kind of error message is this supposed to cause?
- Either way, I don't really like adding a note about the ESP automount yet for several reasons:
- * the fsck is missing in the generated mount unit (this is on systemd's TODO list)
- * it mounts /boot with 0700 permissions. Not sure if this is intended by upstream, but it is annoying and causes warnings from pacman.
- * this feature isn't even documented in systemd yet
- * This is a systemd feature, gummiboot just happens to be the only bootloader to export the EFI variables needed for this (for now). So it's probably debatable whether to put this on the systemd wiki or the gummiboot wiki.
- 65kid (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Although not strictly false, I think the page is a bit misleading because somebody might well think that gummiboot can boot the LTS kernel provided only that you add the EFI menu entry manually. But as far as I know the LTS kernels cannot be booted this way because they lack the stub loader. Obviously that doesn't mean you can't install gummiboot to do something else (boot another kernel, boot a boot loader etc.) but it is a bit odd the way it is put? --cfr (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)