[Bug 937067] New: efi=1 does not seem to work anymore
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 Bug ID: 937067 Summary: efi=1 does not seem to work anymore Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Factory Version: 201505* Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Major Priority: P5 - None Component: Installation Assignee: yast2-maintainers@suse.de Reporter: kukuk@suse.com QA Contact: jsrain@suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- In the past, you could add efi=1 as argument for the installer, and your system was setup for EFI boot, even if the detection fails. This works only partly with Tumbleweed 20150630: the bootloader still installs and configures grub2-x86_64-efi, but the storage proposal does not create a vfat /boot/EFI partition anymore. This works with SLES12, haven't tested openSUSE 13.2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aschnell@suse.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c1 Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kukuk@suse.com Assignee|yast2-maintainers@suse.de |aschnell@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(kukuk@suse.com) --- Comment #1 from Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> --- For me passing "efi=1" does not work on SLE12 (and it's also no surprise since the parameter to force EFI in libstorage is "LIBSTORAGE_EFI=yes"). Maybe it worked in SLE11 with "efi=1" where libstorage used /etc/install.inf or /etc/sysconfig/bootloader to detect EFI. But in SLE12 it always checks for /sys/firmware/efi/vars. Please provide YaST logs from SLE12 installation where this is supposed to work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c2 --- Comment #2 from Lukas Ocilka <locilka@suse.com> --- Thorsten, any news about logs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c3 Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(kukuk@suse.com) | --- Comment #3 from Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.com> --- (In reply to Lukas Ocilka from comment #2)
Thorsten, any news about logs?
Sorry, but I was on FTO and ill... I tried to get the old setup together again to reproduce, but wasn't able to get the same hardware and didn't found a similar machine. Nevertheless, I think we should use one parameter during installation, not two. Explaining the customer to use "efi=1 LIBSTORAGE_EFI=yes" during installation isn't the best idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c4 Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #4 from Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> --- I think we should spend the time instead of fixing auto-detection of EFI. I'm sure you made bug-reports for that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c5 Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- --- Comment #5 from Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.com> --- If we have options to override, they should be usefull and consistent. Else we could remove that code, too. But the real problem is: on 32bit/64bit mix systems, EFI autodetection isn't reliable possible, so we need this options. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |IN_PROGRESS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c6 --- Comment #6 from Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> --- https://github.com/openSUSE/libstorage/pull/145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c7 Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|aschnell@suse.com |jreidinger@suse.com --- Comment #7 from Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.com> --- With libstorage 2.25.30 the user can now override the EFI detection of libstorage with efi=0/1. But a test on Tumbleweed shows that the bootloader does not work: In YaST I get a red error message: "Unsupported combination of hardware platform x86_64 and bootloader grub2-efi. Josef, please comment on the bootloader side. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937067#c12 Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.com> --- unification (comment 9) finally implemented -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (2)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com -
bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com