Timeline for Boot loader isn't located in the partition selected during Linux installation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2023 at 0:55 | comment | added | Tom Yan | Sorry, I don't just read the ArchWiki. I have been with Arch for years on different UEFI implementations. I also suggest you get more hands-on experiences and/or read specs, before believing in / spreading / misinterpreting FUDs, which have always been common on wikis by nature. (But really, the biggest problem here is that you don't reason with logic. It's not even about whether you should or should not have multiple ESPs.) | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 19:15 | comment | added | harrymc | I also suggest to the downvoters to read Wikipedia EFI system partition and Arch Linux EFI system partition which clearly states not to create a second EFI partition. | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 19:00 | comment | added | harrymc | I don't understand the downvotes or the criticisms, but have it your way. | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 18:31 | comment | added | harrymc | @TomYan: Of course the first EFI can point anywhere at all, but the pointing boot entry still needs to be written into it. There is no reason for the installer to point to another EFI partition rather than to the operating systems loaders, or even to search for it. One may use the installer to create 10 EFI partitions, but that doesn't mean that it needs to actually use all of them. | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 18:08 | comment | added | Tom Yan | Besides, regardless of what you deem / thought to be correct, it does NOT explain why the installer allow instructions but ignore it. (The most obvious answer is: the installer is bugged.) | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 18:07 | comment | added | Tom Yan | The only fact that this answer remotely relate to is that some UEFI inplementations (e.g. Pheonix SecureCore) looks for EFI executable at the fallback path from only the first supported (well, hence FAT-family) filesystem (on a drive, or in some case, first drive of a type), but then unless it is some other completely broken implementation (e.g. in which EFI boot entries cannot be created), nothing stops you from having entries that binds to executable on different ESPs (on the same disk). | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 16:20 | comment | added | harrymc | @KamilMaciorowski: I don't see the contradiction. | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 16:07 | comment | added | Kamil Maciorowski |
This answer contradicts other answers and articles I've seen, like this one and this one. The latter was written by the author of gdisk. In particular I doubt that the following statement is true: "If it has used your second EFI partition, the Kubuntu installation would have been ignored by the BIOS that will only look at the first one". For now the answer looks like a try to explain the observed behavior using superficial knowledge and common sense in a hope it will look plausible enough to be upvoted and accepted.
|
|
| Sep 4, 2023 at 15:51 | comment | added | Becker | Great, this is the thing I am looking for. Thanks for your help! | |
| Sep 4, 2023 at 15:50 | vote | accept | Becker | ||
| Sep 4, 2023 at 15:47 | history | answered | harrymc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |