Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(UEFI bootable USB: new section)
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
I was never told to make it 512 MiB or more, and right now it's 47.86 MiB and it works fine. Are there any other particular reasons for making it that relatively big? [[User:SansNumbers|///]] ([[User talk:SansNumbers|t]]) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 
I was never told to make it 512 MiB or more, and right now it's 47.86 MiB and it works fine. Are there any other particular reasons for making it that relatively big? [[User:SansNumbers|///]] ([[User talk:SansNumbers|t]]) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  
== UEFI bootable USB ==
+
Microsoft Documentation mentions the minimum partition size for FAT32 to be 512 MiB. UEFI Spec. in some places mentions just FAT but in some places specifically mentions FAT32. Combining both the cases, having a >=512 MiB FAT32 (not FAT16/FAT12) partition UEFISYS is the best bet for all fimrwares out there, some of which may not support <512 MiB and/or FAT16 partition. -- [[User:The.ridikulus.rat|Keshav P R]] ([[User talk:The.ridikulus.rat|talk]]) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
I create a MBR partition table before I create the FAT32 partition itself. It works for me, but I don't know if it is required.
+
==Questionable edits==
  
== UEFI bootable USB ==
+
Buhman has totally changed the steps to create a bootable UEFI USB.  Persaonlly, I find the new steps to be much more comples than before, and to a pretty terrible job helping the user understand what is actually being achieved.  Buhman's first edit says that he "excommunicated the 7z crap" or something like that.  Wouldn't it be better to leave a perfectly usable option and make note of alternate methods rather than "excommunicating" what is there?  I vote that these instructions should be reverted, or at the very least (heavily) commented.  Thoughts anyone? -- [[User:WonderWoofy|Curtis]] ([[User talk:WonderWoofy|talk]]) 20:00, 16 Dec 2012 (UTC)
  
since install media 2012.10.06... you no longer need "startup.nsh" as it's now using gummiboot... however you still need to label the EFI partition like stated in the wiki. need another method to find out the ISO label as the current method depends on the content of the "startup.nsh"... maybe just mount the ISO, read label then umount? abit much though or just state something like "ARCH_[iso created year][iso created month]" assuming ISO naming is consistent
+
:I'm sorry I don't really have the time to revise those edits now, but the policy on the ArchWiki is to always let the end user choose which method to use in order to do something, never hiding anything, so if you really feel that the previous procedure was better, please add it back in a separate section. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 12:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:I think that the line in the Bootable UEFI USB section that says "Install refind-efi" is ambiguous. Does this mean chroot to the filesystem and then install it? The reason I'm trying to setup the bootable USB is because I don't have an arch install running. Or, should I boot the media using some other means and then install the package? A list of commands would be more helpful. -- [[User:Framps|Framps]] ([[User talk:Framps|talk]]) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 17 January 2013

>=512 MiB for the UEFISYS partition?

I was never told to make it 512 MiB or more, and right now it's 47.86 MiB and it works fine. Are there any other particular reasons for making it that relatively big? /// (t) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Documentation mentions the minimum partition size for FAT32 to be 512 MiB. UEFI Spec. in some places mentions just FAT but in some places specifically mentions FAT32. Combining both the cases, having a >=512 MiB FAT32 (not FAT16/FAT12) partition UEFISYS is the best bet for all fimrwares out there, some of which may not support <512 MiB and/or FAT16 partition. -- Keshav P R (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Buhman has totally changed the steps to create a bootable UEFI USB. Persaonlly, I find the new steps to be much more comples than before, and to a pretty terrible job helping the user understand what is actually being achieved. Buhman's first edit says that he "excommunicated the 7z crap" or something like that. Wouldn't it be better to leave a perfectly usable option and make note of alternate methods rather than "excommunicating" what is there? I vote that these instructions should be reverted, or at the very least (heavily) commented. Thoughts anyone? -- Curtis (talk) 20:00, 16 Dec 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't really have the time to revise those edits now, but the policy on the ArchWiki is to always let the end user choose which method to use in order to do something, never hiding anything, so if you really feel that the previous procedure was better, please add it back in a separate section. -- Kynikos (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that the line in the Bootable UEFI USB section that says "Install refind-efi" is ambiguous. Does this mean chroot to the filesystem and then install it? The reason I'm trying to setup the bootable USB is because I don't have an arch install running. Or, should I boot the media using some other means and then install the package? A list of commands would be more helpful. -- Framps (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)