From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun Mar 29 23:18:30 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0D6267AB0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:18:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48rBNG4DF5z4f0P for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:18:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jIhBu-0000To-NZ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:06 -0600 Received: from mta3.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.67]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jIhBu-0001TQ-4H; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:06 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta3.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CBA161DD3; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:05 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta3.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta3.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta3.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id UUpomrVSFL5w; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (muon.bluestop.org [65.103.231.193]) (Authenticated sender: rebecca@bsdio.com) by mta3.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4E8C161DD2; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:05 -0600 (MDT) To: junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: bsd-lists@BSDforge.com References: <318FDBAF-448F-4C55-A9A8-69D71A73E43B@me.com> <344e85545cfc47c9835fc5918e5b1dc1@udns.ultimatedns.net> <20200329211137.012a8fd62b58525b027bcfb6@dec.sakura.ne.jp> From: Rebecca Cran Message-ID: <40bacb99-d463-cbad-3ccf-b3ddd6856d10@bsdio.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:18:04 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200329211137.012a8fd62b58525b027bcfb6@dec.sakura.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-XM-SPF: eid=1jIhBu-0001TQ-4H; ; ; mid=<40bacb99-d463-cbad-3ccf-b3ddd6856d10@bsdio.com>; ; ; hst=in02.mta.xmission.com; ; ; ip=166.70.13.67; ; ; frm=rebecca@bsdio.com; ; ; spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.67 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa07.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,TR_Symld_Words,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,TooManyTo_001 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4998] * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 1.5 TR_Symld_Words too many words that have symbols inside * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp, freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 282 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.07 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 11 (4.0%), b_tie_ro: 10 (3.5%), parse: 1.08 (0.4%), extract_message_metadata: 4.4 (1.6%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.61 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.6 (0.9%), tests_pri_-950: 1.37 (0.5%), tests_pri_-900: 1.10 (0.4%), tests_pri_-90: 63 (22.4%), check_bayes: 61 (21.7%), b_tokenize: 6 (2.0%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (2.0%), b_comp_prob: 1.85 (0.7%), b_tok_touch_all: 45 (16.0%), b_finish: 0.94 (0.3%), tests_pri_0: 183 (65.1%), check_dkim_signature: 0.53 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 25 (8.8%), poll_dns_idle: 18 (6.5%), tests_pri_10: 2.7 (1.0%), tests_pri_500: 8 (2.9%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: When will the FreeBSD (u)EFI work? X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48rBNG4DF5z4f0P X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rebecca@bsdio.com designates 166.70.13.231 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.98 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.95)[-0.952,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[231.13.70.166.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.18]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:166.70.13.0/24]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdio.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.95)[-0.947,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[231.13.70.166.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6315, ipnet:166.70.0.0/16, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.32)[ip: (-1.52), ipnet: 166.70.0.0/16(1.75), asn: 6315(1.40), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:18:30 -0000 On 3/29/20 6:11 AM, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > > 3. based solution looks good to me. > > IMHO, assuming /efi/bootx[64|32].efi is boot1.efi or loader.efi > or EFI environment pointing to either one is properly used, That's another thing: we should be installing loader.efi as \efi\boot\bootx64.efi (as well as \boot\freebsd\loader.efi) since it's entirely possible to lose the Boot Manager entry and end up with an unbootable system as a result. Unfortunately people have had bad experiences with other operating systems overwriting bootx64.efi and don't believe we should do that. Perhaps I just need to come up with a proof of concept or demo to show that it is possible without breaking other OSes. -- Rebecca Cran