From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5557A15800A for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9897EE08A5; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51EA5E0897 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:21:41 +0200 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1]: profiles/use.desc: add efi global use flag To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <8906de92-bf9d-70b5-903b-6d49ed6dd4af@gentoo.org> <87zg3yzwpb.fsf@gentoo.org> Content-Language: en-US, nl-NL From: Andrew Ammerlaan Autocrypt: addr=andrewammerlaan@gentoo.org; keydata= xsBNBF3n3cUBCAC6uoDZ0XzaO29l8AzUblXQ5rxZI7nbGEnfFqjEQCK3oEXxsDa9Ez1myx3M ir53Vyx64Iz1Bq/TOS/PttgguPpiLggCpTTD2vavp5SwFmg272+P8bUJVJF2mMRm0OR/YPiA B5dNfcoLqKIj+ZMOtrZ72B7agkUn+iDt8lB2fZ7XhfZMyQBXICYSe+EiJJmTuvIhHhOn7GCT VjpwGYCCSw3F/j2VPmJPUftz6Nb4oWaiaJ6ZwroS2ECYqZKeo+dXCsmB/LZWYqIFSSPILTLZ f1Hh/TklnQqkNVO+nY/B/o9RVYAhWJbl/F4VaKlRXemE+pDZIALlK8kt0IFU6liUOHHlABEB AAHNLUFuZHJldyBBbW1lcmxhYW4gPGFuZHJld2FtbWVybGFhbkBnZW50b28ub3JnPsLAlwQT AQgAQQIbAwULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUJB17B8hYhBAb/U0G9gF2wvH0HpqGf Y2zU7bzRBQJjZW15AhkBAAoJEKGfY2zU7bzRnzoH/35qBVzk/a2mYkQVDXxtbusEZwFJDNY5 FPVR/qKdN9C0fFdPVmStpMET/YUjltBRNjNwQ2t0Qux0pP2bcRcPXV/6uFifIDdU2wK1cHEZ XWZdhZ9kLQfGF8R0zy0ZiKem+6jIcQ0lZ+sAO5Dp2a/8AWFVWIQs7ZukQYX7bXLj3Hc5J9y3 ZWjwHStoH0fNwTmHy8qNCx02LAbeH4Tite9+wggiOWt85zlRH79aEd/SZwoXa3FQ91v/xkD3 jfv3kF2ImOXSS8lTL9iGYoOuYHQptEXzmSD1fw9fdZAj4f0MZKkFlkRWIHKJi1IMnSDk7f56 2CJ98DJexkG0v88F/ONqJ0POwE0EXefdxQEIAJtT7965MCxOTic3mISWSI6Z3mFFYmUkxQt8 gBVsTAezOrkd6xEt/HnFPZqeGnbSiV8gMFPKv4RkaXxWfQYKm+9/12qJNEFdVop1rpe77lU2 h0elVXuWiWsNmwqEhQcs1mq/awzO81Lyob9Miai2qNQ9MBikmFAp9c4n8C42kPLVrTKPmemI 95gZ1Y830W+udYg1jNqLF2ucMDUX1M1U2EfazWI0pNCwPoKnOqAJS+VQbyxtJ1IlE3+9sk+6 hjlTTF+RDYGv5hUoWkmcXDM2X/Cl0XB4XYOWr17Wa6+WXC+80/iLxxolMqM4KfuIR5OizbqK 2CRAJY7la7TSv1lTD1cAEQEAAcLAfAQYAQgAJgIbDBYhBAb/U0G9gF2wvH0HpqGfY2zU7bzR BQJjZWxoBQkHXsIjAAoJEKGfY2zU7bzR3R0IAISoT/Ev/Z1pEgqXmCMRA33L5AqS9BhpCorq rP+L6bW/3FyZj2CTp2wLvpmipSpQagvfZE/iIxdckQNfTqOvYQzVIHkzMtMWUgo9UPI2YAiT pg6izIBsU6z4CQOS+N+1cfKUax+HflVIhxmHMe//ecABUi3N7tYrKmIsptGLkCkE0mmT7VLp RscXeghS8e5m00Zdm1tDhkkmE8l+U3NbAvhShE9LsxRZpZiV+lFTXd8nBifPea2F7VYteD2j s/aPMSzH+6qmXeTu1gH8HuGZuW/REDY+lTVmhZ3Caa50yTNB5s90kprPvIfDAB6cbglpwvpD eZueZnPaHcGF1SLcC48= Organization: Gentoo Linux In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 1f8f08e5-c322-41a4-b29c-8d405d337bb4 X-Archives-Hash: e56beb2e212d09e6e3feeb16533a6bbc On 14/07/2023 19:11, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:07 AM Sam James wrote: >> >> >> Andrew Ammerlaan writes: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Currently we have 7 packages defining the efi flag and an additional 2 >>> defining the uefi flag. These flags do the same thing, add support for >>> (U)EFI booting. I therefore propose we introduce efi as a new global >>> flag and later rename the uefi flag to efi in sys-apps/fwupd and >>> sys-apps/ipmicfg. >>> >>> I don't have a strong preference between the efi or uefi flags, but >>> since a majority of the packages has chosen efi I suggest we go with >>> that. >> >> Let's do USE=uefi please - UEFI is the modern name for it, and EFI is >> legacy. I'd like to avoid another USE=ssl situation (where we're >> stuck with it forever given we have no mechanism for USE flag renames, >> despite the fact that it's really TLS now). > > Any thoughts on grub_platforms_efi-32 and grub_platforms_efi-64? > > If we want to rename USE flags, I would probably take the opportunity > to eliminate the GRUB_PLATFORMS USE_EXPAND altogether. > For grub specifically there is another thing to consider. Currently emerging grub does not actually build an efi executable, this (I think) is done when you 'grub-install'. This is unfortunate because that makes it the only bootloader that you can't conveniently sign with secureboot.eclass. I briefly looked into the problem and there is 'grub-mkstandalone' which could be used to generate (and then sign) a grub efi executable. But how this would then work with 'grub-install' I do not know. I don't use grub myself, but maybe someone who does can look into this. Best regards, Andrew