From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/EFI: define and use EFI_DIR make variable, defaulting to /usr/lib64/efi Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:39:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20120724093918.GA8228@US-SEA-R8XVZTX> References: <500D1E36020000780008FC69@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20120723080523.GA9403@aepfle.de> <500D2576020000780008FCAF@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1343033009.3007.4.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <500D306D020000780008FD10@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1343036134.3390.10.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <500D3D87020000780008FD86@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1343120277.5797.101.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343120277.5797.101.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Olaf Hering , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:57:57AM -0700, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:03 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > I noticed that (at least on Debian) grub uses /usr/lib/grub/-efi > > > and elilo uses /usr/lib/elilo. > > > > It's definitely /usr/lib64/efi/elilo.efi on SLE11, so I'm afraid this > > really ins't well standardized (and hence an EFI_DIR override is > > warranted, yet settling on a proper default may be problematic). > > > > > Does that mean we should be using /usr/lib/xen/efi rather than /usr/lib/efi? > > > > > > What is the policy for EFI install location on RPM/LSB based systems? > > > > Don't know. > > > > >> > We already have EFI_MOUNTPOINT under xen/*, I think EFI_DIR under there > > >> > (or in config/*) is fine also. > > >> > > >> That part wasn't controversial (if generally useful), but imo it > > >> shouldn't expand to an open-coded path (unless put into > > >> config/x86_64.mk). > > > > > > I could live with that. Unlike LIBDIR, where getting it wrong can mean > > > things don't work, getting EFI_DIR wrong is merely ugly. > > > > Not exactly - it might still mean that boot loader installation (and > > update) doesn't work anymore. But getting things consistent > > would be a one-time per-distro task, so ought to be manageable. > > So is the upshot that the original patch is basically OK, subject to > settling on a reasonable default for EFI_DIR? With the proviso that > there's basically no standardisation of this stuff and every distro > seems to be choosing a different path? My Apologies for a late reply - I've been traveling over the past few days. That was my conclusion as well. For one more data point, it seems that the GRUB2 efi binaries are deployed directly to /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/grub.efi on Fedora/RHEL systems. > /usr/lib64/efi seems as good as anything. Suitable alternatives might > be /usr/{lib,lib64}/xen/efi/... I think that /boot/xen.efi could also be suitable, but it is farther from the pattern that we see in elilo and GRUB2 EFI binary locations on SUSE and Debian systems. But I figure that /usr/lib64/efi is as good as any other default choice. Matt