Tiny Core Base > Corepure64

Bootx64.efi missing?

<< < (6/7) > >>

PDP-8:
Yeah, and no disrepect to the devs either.  Many years of support starting with the appearance in the DSL forums.

I have a deep sense of gratitude for them hanging in there this long, and answering some of the same decade-old questions.  But they are obviously on a whole different plane than we are. :)

My um, rant, is not to change the direction or focus.  It is just a caution about the iso:

Imagine if DSL started life as a floppy-only distribution, and when CD's came along said no problem, look at the el-torito specs and burn an iso yourself from our floppy images.  Imagine how far that would have gone.

Get a real machine, don't put it on your white-box clone!!!  Plus, CD's are a fad, slam a honest to goodness ST-506 HD in that thing!

Still, at the end of the day, it's just a group of guys doing their thing.  Their house, their show, and if it folded up tomorrow, I'd still be very grateful.

Juanito:
Perhaps the way to go would be to propose a modification to tc-install?

PDP-8:
Hi Juanito!  I agree wholeheartedly about the proposal.

In fact, that is what I am researching before making any proposal.  So yeah, as a user I'm kind of floundering, but I'm looking for clues.

Proposal:
Any attempt to add a uefi-boot option to the current 64-bit iso needs to be done by someone who actually owns uefi-only hardware.  Not just a VM.  Not just a copy of the uefi specs.  Not just an older box that has csm switchable options.  Basically post-2016 hardware.  Keep it generic.  Ie, don't put a sticker on the release saying "only bootable on Intel NUCS". :)

Example: Netbsd long supported some archaic hardware that nobody actually owned anymore, but it passed their automated compilation toolchain with a tweak here or there.  Then they find out that when someone tried it on *actual hardware*, it hadn't been bootable for 7 or 8 years or more.  (Cobalt?  I'll have to look it up)

DESIGN
Should someone be able to just DD, or use some other method like Gparted Live does it where you can mount an iso (or unarchive and zip) and merely copy files to a preformatted fat32 partition?

STRUGGLING
As a mere user, I'm trying my best to find options on my own suggest how to make an iso convenient to use in post-2016 hardware for others seeking the true TC path of enlightenment as a user.

Chicken-and-egg
If the 64-bit iso won't boot on post 2016 hardware, they certainly aren't going to get to the point of using tc-install for convenience.  And no, not everyone scarfs up aging 32-bit machines to use a proposed improvement to the tc-install.  So we're back to the iso.  If that is to be offerred, that has to be able to bootstrap itself onto modern boxes.

Am I making sense?  Any lurkers out there with skills (and actual uefi-only hardware) much larger than mine that can lend a hand to the project and help see it forward?   Make improvements to tc-install?  Make the iso bootstrappable on it's own?

And coordinate with the devs of course so we aren't turning TC into something else!

So even here as a faithful (L)user, I'm looking at whatever I can do for a possible solution.  Anyone here with dev skills have an answer and want to pitch in with code?

PDP-8:
Maybe Jason from dCore can shed some light:

I was able to do nothing more than dd Jason's dCorePure64-Stretch iso to a usb drive and it boots on uefi-only boxes just fine.  Only dd works, not simple mount iso / file copy method.  I tested anyway.

What I noticed in comparison to TinyCore:

dCore has /EFI/BOOT/EFI.IMG
tinycorepure64  has /EFI/BOOT/efiboot.img

Is there simply a naming issue?  Gosh, I'm so tired I don't have the strength to try and swap Jason's EFI.IMG tonight...

Jason's dCore EFI.IMG is 4096k
TinyCorepure64's efiboot.img is only 1440k

Obviously different system architecture support, but just poked out at me.

Can we reach across the aisle and doublecheck things? :)

nick65go:
Maybe you do not like a standard (UEFI), but it must be obeyed by firmware/manufactures.
It is not useful if a firmware allow you to boot from a FAT32 partition NOT marked as ESP type. Because you can not generalize from these isolated cases that worked for you.

Regarding a good ISO for TC, I think I pointed out that what you need is a /EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI file (yes capital letters is better), and that BOOTX64.EFI to be a grub with a proper embedded configuration. Maybe ()/ is not enough, maybe you need MULTIPLE paths into that config file; so your grub (inside efiboot.img) search for /, then /cd or /cd0 etc. [Have someone look (with 7zip) inside a Ubuntu grub.efi, to see its embedded config? (written in normal/documented grub syntax?]

The efiboot.img is ONLY for DVD/CDROM.
To allow for easy copy the ISO, the ISO root must have an /EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI (no embedded config is need) and you COPY the iso into an ESP partition. IF you DD the iso on an HDD you destroy HDD GPT disk type. DD works (with an hybrid ISO- hybrid means boot both BIOS/UEFI) only for a MBR HDD/USB. That is all. Because this BOOTX64.EFI is useful only for USB/HDD booting.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page