Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:56:02 -0400 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, freebsd-stable stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Media image names - Document & rationalise. Message-ID: <CAOgwaMuTPtKUk=2q=bcObr8So9DpGx%2Bo9y6DvCyPPP1y4ZKEXw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2DYkYwPD_6Hm6c1wyyDjVRmSAqVnGumXYfm_k6-Jo4MTA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201410011358.s91DwOXJ033137@fire.js.berklix.net> <20141001143754.GF1275@hub.FreeBSD.org> <CAPyFy2DYkYwPD_6Hm6c1wyyDjVRmSAqVnGumXYfm_k6-Jo4MTA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 1 October 2014 10:37, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:58:24PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > >> Maybe there was an explanation of -uefi- on a mail list. One can > >> guess: for [some?] newer machines try uefi. But could we put a more > >> exact purpose of uefi images in a README ? > >> > > > > The UEFI images will be documented in the release announcement email, > > because they are specific to the 10.1-RELEASE cycle. 11.0-RELEASE will > > have the functionality in the default installation medium. > > To be clear, the existing, legacy-only images are built the same way > as they always have been. The reason there are separate -uefi- images > is to avoid accidental regression in legacy-only boot support. > > The 10.1 -uefi- images (as well as the 11.0 images) are actually > dual-mode, and should boot in both UEFI and legacy configurations. > I'm interested in receiving test reports of installations using the > -uefi- images, in both UEFI and legacy boot configurations. > > (Technical detail: The image contains legacy MBR boot code, and is > partitioned using the MBR scheme. One of the MBR partitions is an EFI > system partition of type 0xEF. Legacy boot uses the MBR, while UEFI > loads the first-stage loader /EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI. Both cases use > the same root file system and boot the same kernel.) > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > I have installed both of the ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BETA2-amd64-dvd1.iso.xz ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BETA2-amd64-uefi-dvd1.iso.xz distributions into the same HDD in a non-UEFI mainboard ( Intel DG965WHM ) . No one of them produced a bootable installation . Previously I have sent the message https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2014-August/051617.html about this issue . The problem is still persisting in Beta 2 . On the same computer , Fedora 21 Alpha is booting very well ( means there is not any hardware problem ) . I did not try 10.1 Beta 3 because there is no any mention of this problem in the announcement message . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMuTPtKUk=2q=bcObr8So9DpGx%2Bo9y6DvCyPPP1y4ZKEXw>