Differential D18648
Change the way efibootmgr works by specifying bootnum via -b parameter Authored by bcran on Dec 24 2018, 5:01 AM. Tags None Referenced Files
Subscribers None
Details Instead of passing the bootnum to each different parameter, require users This allows activation of a new boot entry at same same time it's created This is obviously a breaking change. Sponsored by: Netflix
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions Update bsdinstall/bootconfig to use the -a parameter when creating the boot entry. Comment Actions I went back and forth on this when I was writing the code. I thought it was a more natural interface to say --activate #, --deactivate #, etc, rather that --activate --bootnum #. I see the use-case, though. It could be handled by a second invocation, but the original code was already confused over what set_active means (in some places using it as a boolean, other places using it and the boot number). So I think on the whole this is good, modulo my comments. I'm also not that I'm super stoked about this interface. It's too old school. We should have something more like nvmecontrol, et al, that does efibootmgr create <create-args>, efibootmgr activate -b XXXXX <args>, etc. But that will have to wait for another day (and likely need the current setup around for backwards compat for a release or so).
Comment Actions Remove unrelated changes, move error handling.
Comment Actions Yeah, I agree that it's a more natural interface the way it is, but given the Linux efibootmgr requires the -b parameter and activating the entry with a second invocation is rather clunky (especially in scripts) I think this change makes sense.
At least it's mostly compatible with the Linux efibootmgr parameters, which I presume isn't accidental. Comment Actions Works for me. Again, I think it was a mistake to have flags for both verbs and options, but that's what linux did and will need to be fixed in a separate commit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||