IRC Logs for #crux-devel Tuesday, 2014-07-15

teK__I think he may be right00:06
teK__and at least one (ideally two?) efi capable bootload should be available, too (did not check for this)00:07
jaegerI suppose we could add dosfstools, I just do that in the chroot myself00:16
jaegerrebooting isn't needed but I guess he didn't know that00:16
jaegerSince we've already put off 3.1 for so long I think maybe we should fix that in 3.2. Perhaps a wiki entry for installing in the chroot?00:17
jaegernot sure which way I feel better about... since EFI support is supposed to be official now, theoretically00:20
*** mavrick61 has quit IRC02:39
*** mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel02:40
*** frinnst has quit IRC02:42
*** frinnst has joined #crux-devel02:42
*** frinnst has quit IRC02:42
*** frinnst has joined #crux-devel02:42
*** nrxtx has joined #crux-devel02:45
*** nrxtx has quit IRC03:12
*** Amnesia has quit IRC03:12
*** frinnst has quit IRC03:12
*** jaeger has joined #crux-devel03:20
*** teK__ has joined #crux-devel03:20
*** frinnst has joined #crux-devel03:20
*** nrxtx has joined #crux-devel03:22
*** Amnesia has joined #crux-devel03:23
*** Guest22621 has joined #crux-devel04:45
*** Guest22621 has quit IRC05:00
*** Guest22621 has joined #crux-devel05:00
*** Guest22621 has quit IRC05:12
teK__yes, there are quite some EFI systems arround08:22
teK__and we do have a fine wiki page created by you about efi topics, we could point to that08:23
frinnstyes. imo we should not worry about stuff like that right now. Its not worth delaying 3.1 for atleast08:51
frinnstand yeah, you can just chroot and install dosfsutils then fix the /boot fs or whatever08:56
frinnstI've added a comment to the bug09:03
teK__we ought to update jdk09:29
teK__frinnst: which mail address did sepen use to contact you and has your answer bounced?09:44
*** frinnst has quit IRC09:56
*** teK__ has quit IRC09:56
*** jaeger has quit IRC09:56
*** frinnst has joined #crux-devel10:00
*** teK__ has joined #crux-devel10:01
frinnst11:55 <@frinnst>                                                                                                    |10:01
frinnst11:55 <@frinnst> it has not bounced yet. but last time it took maybe a week before it bounced10:02
frinnstmy isp forces me to deliver mail via its relay so i cant tell if it's queued somewhere10:02
*** jaeger has joined #crux-devel10:03
teK__ul 15 12:04:03 archer postfix/smtp[29566]: 04D0369005E: to=<>,[]:25, delay=1.5, delays=0.08/0/1/0.4, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0)10:04
teK__Jul 15 12:04:03 archer postfix/qmgr[2499]: 04D0369005E: removed10:04
frinnstmaybe pitillo_ has set it up after the server move?10:05
teK__on the other he did not respond either unresponded mail is as bad as bounced mail ;)10:06
teK__oh and I still think that installing dosfstools inside the chroot is a HUGE inconsistency10:11
frinnstsent him a mail asking him to reply10:11
teK__imaging a scenario without internet access10:11
frinnstYeah sure, but its doable10:11
teK__i.e. laptop without the proper firmware for wifi10:11
teK__basically you can not install CRUX on that machine if you need EFI10:12
teK__which sucks big time10:12
frinnstyes but fuuuuck if we are gonna delay 3.1 any more :)10:12
teK__delay? O_o it's adding a single tarball and another line in packages.opt/Makefile10:13
frinnstjust get 3.1 out the door.. build a iso later on10:13
teK__I bet jaeger can add the package in no time10:13
Romsteradd the package we require EFI support.10:14
jaegerwe have no efi bootloader in opt currently and it would require another bootstrap. I'd prefer to release 3.1 and then fix it later13:04
teK__one still canboot the kernel as a EFI stub13:05
jaegersimplest way I can describe it is "the next BIOS"13:43
frinnstyes but what benefit does it add? Are there still any major limitation of the traditional bios that hasnt been worked around?13:43
nrxtx"All Windows 8 systems that meet Microsoft's certification requirements must use UEFI firmware with Secure Boot enabled."13:43
nrxtxLocked bootloaders, disallow alternative software13:44
frinnstyes but secure boot requires eufi. uefi doesnt require secure boot13:44
jaegerThe DRM options aren't what I'd call a benefit but on the other side of things you can fit a lot more functionality into UEFI than BIOS. More diagnostic or recovery tools, etc.13:45
teK__my MSI board came with a UEFI based game13:45
teK__oh and it provides mouse support and funky icons!1113:45
nrxtxjaeger: they are the benefits for vendors locking in customers13:45
jaegerI'm not concerned about what benefits the vendor, personally13:45
nrxtxmany other parts are to play around13:46
nrxtxthe weird try to bring applications into system bootup13:46
jaegerOn a more practical note, it gets around issues like 2TB max boot volume size, legacy option ROM memory addressing limits, stuff like that13:46
nrxtxyeah but you don't need that drm stuff for this13:47
jaegeralso, newer option ROM configs can be integrated into the UEFI setup instead of having separate config menus of their own and hotkeys, etc.13:47
nrxtxthey just used that limitations to bring in their stuff13:47
jaegerI'm answering frinnst, not arguing the use of DRM13:47
frinnstyeah, forgot about the bootvol limitation13:48
frinnstI guess i should give it a go. Im usually very "anti" before trying it myself :)13:49
jaegerIt's one of those technologies that a lot of users don't need yet. But it's the new thing, so might as well check it out13:49
jaegerfrinnst: it won't affect your daily usage at all for what that's worth. Just partitioning/installation/boot13:51
frinnstanybody able to test dhcpcd 6.4.2? I dont run dhcp anywhere14:33
jaegerI'll take a look at it14:56
jaegerseems like it works fine14:59
frinnstyay, sepen replied. his mail works now! :)19:34
teK__did not respond to my mail :)19:52
frinnstbtw, are there any docs regarding 32bit ports? either in the handbook or on the wiki?22:13
frinnstsuper late here, zzzz22:13
jaegerprobably not22:14
teK__and my mail to sepen wrt jdk is already outdated. Oracle fixed 20 Java vulns today22:29

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!