[blfs-dev] Recent Activities

Dan McGhee beesnees at grm.net
Fri Jun 13 15:51:53 PDT 2014


On 06/13/2014 04:56 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:49:12 -0500
>> From: Dan McGhee <beesnees at grm.net>
>> To: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev at lists.linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] Recent Activities
>>
> 	.
> 	.
>> 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.
>
> UEFI is not needed to use GPT. (E.g. an 11-year-old p4/p4spa+ test-machine
> here runs perfectly happily with all (>~4) disks GPT and min 16 (primary)
> partitions per disk.)
>
>
> 	.
> 	.
>>> 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
>> tree.
>
> The wikipedia and rodsbooks articles on GPT, might (still - haven't checked
> in a while) be worth looking at. (Yes, there are other good refs too.)
In response to both of your comments, I bought a laptop last September 
and was brutally exposed to Secure Boot and UEFI hardware. There was a 
steep learning curve and Wikipedia, Rodsbooks and Arch Wiki helped get 
me to the point I am today. In my upcoming build, I want to go deeper 
and get GRUB to help me out.
>> 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.
>>
>
> (( There's much 'Stockholm Syndrome' visible on many tech mailing lists
> ... ;)  .
> ))
I never thought of myself as being held hostage by {,B}LFS lists. But 
now that you mention it, I do remember being restless and unsettled 
while pacing in my house waiting for responses from the list. So 
maybe..... ; )

Thanks, akh.
Dan



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list