As of grub2 >= 2.02-95 on redhat family distros, calling grub2-install
on an EFI partition will fail with: "this utility cannot be used for
EFI platforms because it does not support UEFI Secure Boot."
This version of grub is now in centos8-stream and non-eus repos of
RHEL-8. It is not currently possible to build whole-disk UEFI images
on these distros, and when this package is promoted this will also
affect centos8 and RHEL-8 eus. The grub maintainers made this change
because the grub2-install generated /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI
will never be capable of booting with Secure Boot.
This change defines a $EFI_BOOT_DIR for every distro element. When
directory /boot/efi/$EFI_BOOT_DIR exists a grub.cfg file in will be
generated there. This change also installs the shim package on redhat
family distros, which installs a copy of the shim bootloader to
/boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI. Using centos as an example, this
allows UEFI to boot the shim /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI which
then chains to /boot/efi/EFI/centos/grubx64.efi.
If /boot/efi/$EFI_BOOT_DIR doesn't exist (such as for Ubuntu,
/boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu) the current behaviour of running grub-install to
generate /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI will continue. For distros
such as Ubutnu where packaging does not populate /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu
with .efi files, secure boot can be added in the future by copying
.efi files to /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu and copying the shim file to
/boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI.
Change-Id: I90925218ff2aa4c4daffcf86e686b6d98d6b0f21
Despite having several issues (like missing firmware), it is still
used by people. It seems that the only way to stop that is to remove it.
Change-Id: I4baed8e8ab663c624dcc8d06ff0293d57b082abb
Currently rhel7 image creation fails because it tries to copy
default bootloaders which is ubuntu way. This commit updates `iso`
element to correct the path of bootloaders required for rhel image.
Change-Id: I526d75b2db609fc77be0fc778b4d00f2d3df38ec
Closes-bug: 1750725
Currently we have all our elements and library files in a top-level
directory and install them into
<root>/share/diskimage-builder/[elements|lib] (where root is either /
or the root of a virtualenv).
The problem with this is that editable/development installs (pip -e)
do *not* install data_files. Thus we have no canonical location to
look for elements -- leading to the various odd things we do such as a
whole bunch of guessing at the top of disk-image-create and having a
special test-loader in tests/test_elements.py so we can run python
unit tests on those elements that have it.
data_files is really the wrong thing to use for what are essentially
assets of the program. data_files install works well for things like
config-files, init.d files or dropping documentation files.
By moving the elements under the diskimage_builder package, we always
know where they are relative to where we import from. In fact,
pkg_resources has an api for this which we wrap in the new
diskimage_builder/paths.py helper [1].
We use this helper to find the correct path in the couple of places we
need to find the base-elements dir, and for the paths to import the
library shell functions.
Elements such as svc-map and pkg-map include python unit-tests, which
we do not need tests/test_elements.py to special-case load any more.
They just get found automatically by the normal subunit loader.
I have a follow-on change (I69ca3d26fede0506a6353c077c69f735c8d84d28)
to move disk-image-create to a regular python entry-point.
Unfortunately, this has to move to work with setuptools. You'd think
a symlink under diskimage_builder/[elements|lib] would work, but it
doesn't.
[1] this API handles stuff like getting files out of .zip archive
modules, which we don't do. Essentially for us it's returning
__file__.
Change-Id: I5e3e3c97f385b1a4ff2031a161a55b231895df5b
