3 ms·
IIRC, systemd-boot relies on EFISTUB. It's just a boot manager, not a boot loader. One EFI application calling another. For trivial setups (one kernel that kee
by fuzzy2 4y ago
IIRC, systemd-boot relies on EFISTUB. It's just a boot manager, not a boot loader. One EFI application calling another.
For trivial setups (one kernel that keeps getting updated in-place), a boot manager is not required. For more sophisticated setups (version in kernel file name or Nix style system versions or whatever), a boot manager is very convenient.
- Volundr 4y agoYeah, exactly. This is why you still need to sign kernel images if using Secure Boot with systemd-boot. Personally the only reason I have it in the loop is it makes it so much easier to switch the an lts kernel if say... zfs has failed to build on a kernel update and I didn't notice (not that THAT would ever happen). Could use multiple EFI entries for that, but systemd-boot is simpler.
- MobiusHorizons 4y agoFair enough this type of thing was my main worry with that setup, and I kept a backup known-good configuration around manually for this purpose. Any automation there seems useful.
- deathanatos 4y ago> It's just a boot manager, not a boot loader. One EFI application calling another. Is this not exactly what GRUB is, on UEFI systems?
- fuzzy2 4y agoI don’t think so. GRUB still retains its boot loader capabilities for Linux and others. It can also be a pure boot manager, using chainloading. Simply put: It can boot Linux on EFI without EFISTUB.