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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F8A6138350 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10980E0B50; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-out-auth1.hosts.co.uk (mail-out-auth1.hosts.co.uk [195.7.255.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6072E0B23 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [81.153.42.4] (helo=[192.168.1.225]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1jLq49-000A4T-9J for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:23:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ...recreating exactly the same applications on a new harddisc? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200404173459.eggbc2sijcnkw67j@solfire> <5478b9d7-81c3-8799-47e6-f7bea85f1ee5@youngman.org.uk> <20200406221520.6f844b33@digimed.co.uk> <3014614.AJdgDx1Vlc@lenovo.localdomain> From: antlists Message-ID: <780e50c6-8db4-81b4-e8c9-8ca683e19aa7@youngman.org.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:23:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3014614.AJdgDx1Vlc@lenovo.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 14573cfc-d059-4364-a2f1-84018d3f5a83 X-Archives-Hash: a32d6fcffee2668a0c5756633533416b On 07/04/2020 00:38, Michael wrote: > Perhaps older UEFI specifications allowed Mac-baked filesystems, or perhaps > Apple were/are doing their own thing. The current UEFI specification > *requires* a FAT 12/16/32 filesystem type on an ESP partition to boot an OS > image/bootloader from - see section '13.3 File System Format': Reading the spec, it said "must *support*", not must *require*. What I was told - by someone I see no reason to disbelieve - was that if a vendor wants to support a different filesystem *in addition*, provided it supports all the calls then there's no problem. (Incidentally, if that's the final spec, I think I've spotted a mistake in it - it clearly doesn't actually mean what it says in at least one place ...) Cheers, Wol