Tails

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2015-07-07 16:13:45

• Parent task set to Feature #8471

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2015-07-07 16:20:26

• Assignee set to sajolida
• QA Check set to Info Needed
• Feature Branch set to feature/8471-32-bit-UEFI

Hi sajolida!

so, as stated earlier on the parent ticket (Feature #8471), the goal here is to support hardware with a 32-bit UEFI firmware, such as recent Intel Bay Trail boxes (mostly netbooks and tablets AFAIK). For technical reasons, I could not add such support with syslinux, so instead I added a GRUB2 32-bit UEFI bootloader. So:

• users who already can start Tails, be it in legacy MBR mode or via 64-bit UEFI, won’t see any difference at all, unless I’ve messed up pretty badly;
• users who have 32-bit UEFI hardware (that currently cannot start Tails) will be able to start Tails (at least to load the kernel and initramfs), but they’ll see a slightly different boot loader:
  • it has the same menu options (“Live” and “Live (failsafe)”, sic)
  • it has different keybindings and kernel command-line editor interface (I assume you’re familiar with how GRUB2 works in this respect, so I won’t elaborate on how exactly it’s different)
  • it has no splash screen (while MBR users see our nice splash screen, and 64-bit UEFI users see an ugly gray thingie currently)

So I’m wondering what kind of doc updates are needed for merging Feature #8471. I’m fine with drafting the changes, and then I can ask you or BitingBird to refine them before merging. At first glance, I see:

• doc/first_steps/bug_reporting/tails_does_not_start has documentation to edit the kernel command line, that may need to be forked somehow for 32-bit UEFI users; but I’m unsure because, OTOH:
  • it’ll make the doc’s flow more complicated for the vast majority of users;
  • GRUB2 has inline contextual documentation that already explains how to do so, so perhaps that’s not really needed.
• same for doc/first_steps/startup_options
• support/known_issues has something about 32-bit UEFI Macs, that I updated already on the topic branch
• I don’t think we document anywhere else the lack of support for 32-bit UEFI hardware, so we should be fine.

Anything else?

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2015-07-19 07:34:20

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
• % Done changed from 0 to 20

#5 Updated by sajolida 2015-07-29 15:04:40

• Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri

Thanks for the ping. I haven’t followed much of 1.5 until now. From what you wrote I understand that people can see three different screens on boot (before Tails Greeter):

• Legacy boot shows https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/startup_options/boot-menu-with-options.png.
• 64-bit UEFI shows “an ugly gray thingie” as until now according to you even though I think I’ve never saw it myself.
• 32-bit UEFI shows GRUB2 which is the new thing.

Obviously, I would prefer everybody seeing the same thing as it makes our screenshot and instructions more consistent. Still, I’m fine with showing what the most frequent screen does especially since I don’t remember people complaining about any difference when on 64-bit UEFI so far which would be the concerning part of what you are describing.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2015-07-30 06:11:41

• QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed

> Obviously, I would prefer everybody seeing the same thing as it makes our screenshot and instructions more consistent.

I’m afraid that won’t be possible without either:

• either migrating everyone (including DVD users) to GRUB;
• or spending time on theming GRUB to look like syslinux, or vice-versa.

I’ve been pondering the first option, but that’ll be for later (and I’d like to give GRUB a try with this 32-bit UEFI thing first before making a decision). Given this, the second option would feel like wasting time. So I guess we’ll have to live with that discrepancy for now.

> Still, I’m fine with showing what the most frequent screen does especially since I don’t remember people complaining about any difference when on 64-bit UEFI so far which would be the concerning part of what you are describing.

Thanks!

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2015-08-03 10:30:35

• Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
• Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
• % Done changed from 20 to 100
• QA Check deleted (Dev Needed)

Conclusion: all that’s needed was done already on the topic branch that’s covered by the parent ticket, and that’s waiting for QA.