-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
packaging: add a systemd unit to run every boot #716
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | ||||||
| [Unit] | ||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Let's name this unit |
||||||
| Description=Update Bootloader on boot | ||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
|
||||||
| Documentation=https://github.com/coreos/bootupd | ||||||
| ConditionPathExists=/dev/disk/by-label/EFI-SYSTEM | ||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We should add as well:
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There's already also
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That said we need to support BIOS too...so probably the best would be e.g.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, but that's by design in bootupd today; there is
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am OK with
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. i think the overall agreement was to close this PR and carry this in the distribution
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
As that's what's used in https://github.com/coreos/bootupd/blob/main/src/efi.rs#L39 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| [Service] | ||||||
| Type=oneshot | ||||||
| ExecStart=/usr/bin/bootupctl update | ||||||
| RemainAfterExit=yes | ||||||
| MountFlags=slave | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| [Install] | ||||||
| WantedBy=multi-user.target | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An overall challenge here is that we'll have come full circle since #663 ...and then e.g. people maintaining SELinux policy are still going to come by and say "oh hey there's a systemd service, we need to write a policy for it...".
With this combined I would probably say that instead of this we should implement bootupd support into rpm-ostree and bootc.
(This also relates to #432 )