The systemd-boot is enabled in OE, undocumented yet. We need to change wic and add new plugin (wks) so that people can construct direct-boot images with sd-boot like what we have for gummitboot. This work should be done prior to an overall document update. The intention is to replace gummiboot with sd-boot any time in the future. But we should keep gummiboot function along with new sd-boot until the replacement covers all features and test around gummitboot.
Created attachment 3276 [details] 0001-wic-add-systemd-boot-option-in-EFI-boot-image-plugin.patch
Created attachment 3277 [details] 0002-wic-clone-gummiboot-wks-for-systemd-boot.patch
I have sent two patches in attachment to OE mailing list after a very basic test.
The two patches (V1) has been merged into OE so I think we could close this ticket since functionality is available with mksystemd-bootdisk.wks. http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-July/123666.html http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-July/123665.html Another following patch to be merged renames wks file to systemd-bootdisk.wks: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-July/124327.html For validation, depending one which wks file your OE tip contains, you run: wic create mksystemd-bootdisk -e core-image-minimal or wic create systemd-bootdisk -e core-image-minimal
If this affects YP user documentation, can a separate bug be filed to indicate that? Thanks, Scott
Scott, I am not sure if this really affects document although it is one of multiple steps to replace gummiboot with systemd-boot. (Ref to blocked 9707). I checked dev manual for wic section. It makes some examples like "wic list images" and "wic create ...", but I don't see a completed list of wks files is required in document. Have you seen another place to confirm this? I could miss anywhere in document. BTW, 9707 is for whole document update once every functionality of new systemd-boot is ready to replace gummiboot.
Hi Ji, So Bug 9707 lists out the sections in the manual that I think would be affected. I will just defer to Bug 9707 for doc changes this Bug 9886 specifies "Don't Know" for the doc flag. Maybe you can set that to "No" and we will address the doc issues in Bug 9707. Does that work? Scott
Sure, Scott. I just realize its old value so probably why you stepped into this. I have changed it to "No" and we will address any document change in 9707 for the replacement.