Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 17:23:22 -0400 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, nathanw@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Media image names - Document & rationalise. Message-ID: <CAOgwaMtNdjSMxFQo3LnYy-b6mMPzmKfCi=WQ2KwEqk2xXHP6%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <88376822.lFZdKxbhSR@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201410011358.s91DwOXJ033137@fire.js.berklix.net> <CAPyFy2DYkYwPD_6Hm6c1wyyDjVRmSAqVnGumXYfm_k6-Jo4MTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOgwaMuTPtKUk=2q=bcObr8So9DpGx%2Bo9y6DvCyPPP1y4ZKEXw@mail.gmail.com> <88376822.lFZdKxbhSR@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:34 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 01, 2014 04:56:02 PM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 1 October 2014 10:37, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:58:24PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > >> Maybe there was an explanation of -uefi- on a mail list. One can > > > >> guess: for [some?] newer machines try uefi. But could we put a more > > > >> exact purpose of uefi images in a README ? > > > > > > > > The UEFI images will be documented in the release announcement email, > > > > because they are specific to the 10.1-RELEASE cycle. 11.0-RELEASE > will > > > > have the functionality in the default installation medium. > > > > > > To be clear, the existing, legacy-only images are built the same way > > > as they always have been. The reason there are separate -uefi- images > > > is to avoid accidental regression in legacy-only boot support. > > > > > > The 10.1 -uefi- images (as well as the 11.0 images) are actually > > > dual-mode, and should boot in both UEFI and legacy configurations. > > > I'm interested in receiving test reports of installations using the > > > -uefi- images, in both UEFI and legacy boot configurations. > > > > > > (Technical detail: The image contains legacy MBR boot code, and is > > > partitioned using the MBR scheme. One of the MBR partitions is an EFI > > > system partition of type 0xEF. Legacy boot uses the MBR, while UEFI > > > loads the first-stage loader /EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI. Both cases use > > > the same root file system and boot the same kernel.) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > I have installed both of the > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BETA > > 2-amd64-dvd1.iso.xz > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BET > > A2-amd64-uefi-dvd1.iso.xz > > > > distributions into the same HDD in a non-UEFI mainboard ( Intel DG965WHM > > ) . > > > > No one of them produced a bootable installation . > > > > Previously I have sent the message > > > > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2014-August/051617.html > > > > about this issue . > > > > The problem is still persisting in Beta 2 . > > > > On the same computer , Fedora 21 Alpha is booting very well ( means there > > is not any hardware problem ) . > > > > > > I did not try 10.1 Beta 3 because there is no any mention of this problem > > in the announcement message . > > > > > > Thank you very much . > > I believe the issue here as I discussed with Marcel last year is that the > x86 > installer needs to tell gpart to set the active flag on the dummy MBR > slice in > the PMBR if GPT is being used without EFI (the installer knows if it is > booted > via EFI or not). > > In 9.2 and older, the flag was always set, but that violated the EFI spec > and > broke several systems, so in 9.3 and later, gpart was changed to not set > the > flag by default. However, we should still set it for non-EFI booting via > GPT > to cater to broken BIOSes (such as yours). > > -- > John Baldwin > Some Linux distibutions are published ( on the same .iso ) as installable onto both old BIOS and new UEFI capable BIOS , but I do not know how they are doing it . I am installing the same Linux distribution onto computer with old BIOS ( Intel mainboard ) and another computer with UEFI capable BIOS ( ASUS mainboard ) without activating UEFI mode and both of them are booting successfully after installation and working . When I move a FreeBSD or Linux installed HDD booting successfully in an old BIOS having computer to a new UEFI capable BIOS having computer , they are booting and working successfully . Therefore I can not say anything about what FreeBSD Project can decide what to do on this problem , but I think there are a large number of main boards that are using old BIOSes which they have been programmed to boot from an MBR enabled device ( perhaps ONLY from such a device or from ONLY "active" partitions ) . Actually I am not mentioning this problem only for my benefit . I can find a way to solve this problem . Important point is less experienced users encountering a very disappointing outcome old style computers . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMtNdjSMxFQo3LnYy-b6mMPzmKfCi=WQ2KwEqk2xXHP6%2BQ>