[blfs-dev] Recent Activities

Dan McGhee beesnees at grm.net
Fri Jun 13 11:49:12 PDT 2014

On 06/13/2014 01:00 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan McGhee wrote:
>> On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Bootable GPT Partition
>>> Disabling unneeded UEFI 'BIOS'
>> Could you please amplify on what you wanted and what you did. I'm
>> particularly interested in what you call "unneeded UEFI 'BIOS'"--what
>> you wanted to do, what prevented it and how you solved it.
> I powered up the system with the F2 key held down. I then got the BIOS 
> screen and had to enable legacy BIOS mode so I could boot from a USB 
> drive. There is no need for me to sign my kernels, etc. That's an 
> especially annoying thing to do when I'm updated the kernel 
> configuration a lot.
OK. Understand. Familiar with that.

What I was trying to do, and succeeded with gummiboot and using the 
kernel's efi stub, was to bypass Secure Boot but use the rest of the 
abilities of UEFI, mainly the use of more than four primary partitions. 
With what I have right now there is no need to sign the kernels. 
However, as you pointed out when I was playing with this, I need a 
different kernel residing in separate directories of my EFI partition. 
Being able to boot with GRUB, again as you pointed out, means only one 
item on the EFI partition for all operating systems I want to use. This 
is the point I want to start from in a new LFS build.
>> Also, I've not, when I didn't make mistakes, not encountered my GPT
>> partition not booting. To what are you referring?
> For a GPT partition GRUB wants a special partition of it's own (1 Mb). 
> The first time I started it up I forgot that. I hadn't booted from a 
> GPT formatted disk before this.
This I did not know. But, with the state of my knowledge today, doesn't 
GRUB, used like this, depend on installation in a "Legacy BIOS" 
situation? And doesn't "legacy BIOS" mean only four primary partitions? 
If there's no partition limitation, then I've been barking up the wrong 
> My idea of multi-boot is LFS (many versions), Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, etc.
As is mine. I'd love to be in a situation to have an "LFS Sandbox."
>>> Along the way I've been able to study the Linux Kernel configuration
>>> in additional depth, work with polkt/consolkit, and finally explore
>>> gtk+ and some gnome applications that I didn't have before.
>> Because of what I wanted to do graphically with xfce, actually
>> dependencies in BLFS, I got involved with polkit and consolekit so I'm
>> interested in riding along on the learning curve when it comes to this.
> I'm not sure what you are asking. What I found was that *kit really 
> doesn't want to work without PAM. Other than that, just follow the book.
Until my last build, I'd never used *kit and PAM. Struggled through a 
lot and have seen on the list recently discussion of rules for the kits 
and PAM. I'd like to have more facility with writing these rules. Right 
now, if I have a problem that ends up needed a rule in this area, I need 
to appeal to the list for help, and, when the solution is a new or 
modified rule, type it verbatim into one of my files.

Thanks again, Bruce.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list