Media image names - Document & rationalise.

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 1 October 2014 10:37, Glen Barber <gjb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:58:24PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> >> Maybe there was an explanation of -uefi- on a mail list. One can
> >> guess: for [some?] newer machines try uefi. But could we put a more
> >> exact purpose of uefi images in a README ?
> >>
> >
> > The UEFI images will be documented in the release announcement email,
> > because they are specific to the 10.1-RELEASE cycle.  11.0-RELEASE will
> > have the functionality in the default installation medium.
>
> To be clear, the existing, legacy-only images are built the same way
> as they always have been.  The reason there are separate -uefi- images
> is to avoid accidental regression in legacy-only boot support.
>
> The 10.1 -uefi- images (as well as the 11.0 images) are actually
> dual-mode, and should boot in both UEFI and legacy configurations.
> I'm interested in receiving test reports of installations using the
> -uefi- images, in both UEFI and legacy boot configurations.
>
> (Technical detail: The image contains legacy MBR boot code, and is
> partitioned using the MBR scheme. One of the MBR partitions is an EFI
> system partition of type 0xEF.  Legacy boot uses the MBR, while UEFI
> loads the first-stage loader /EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI.  Both cases use
> the same root file system and boot the same kernel.)
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

I have installed both of the

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BETA2-amd64-dvd1.iso.xz
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.1/FreeBSD-10.1-BETA2-amd64-uefi-dvd1.iso.xz

distributions into the same HDD in a non-UEFI mainboard ( Intel DG965WHM
)   .

No one of them produced a bootable installation .

Previously I have sent the message

https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2014-August/051617.html

about this issue .

The problem is still persisting in Beta 2 .

On the same computer , Fedora 21 Alpha is booting very well ( means there
is not any hardware problem ) .


I did not try 10.1 Beta 3 because there is no any mention of this problem
in the announcement message .


Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk