You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From a user perspective it is valid to combine --vmefi with --arch arm64.
+ mkfs.fat -n EFI /dev/mapper/loop0p1
mkfs.fat 4.2 (2021-01-31)
+ MKFS_OPTS=' -F -L LINUX'
+ einfo 'Running mkfs.ext4 -F -L LINUX on /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3'
+ einfon 'Running mkfs.ext4 -F -L LINUX on /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3\n'
+ '[' '' '!=' yes ']'
+ '[' einfon = ebegin ']'
+ printf ' %s*%s Running mkfs.ext4 -F -L LINUX on /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3\n' 'e[32;01m' 'e[0m'
e[32;01m*e[0m Running mkfs.ext4 -F -L LINUX on /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3
+ LAST_E_CMD=einfon
+ return 0
+ return 0
+ mkfs.ext4 -F -L LINUX /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3
mke2fs 1.47.0 (5-Feb-2023)
The file /dev/mapper/loop0p3p3 does not exist and no size was specified.
In that case an unexpected code path will be used. if is if [ -n "$VMEFI" ]; then which means that code path will be used instead of the if [ "$ARCH" = 'arm64' ]; then code path.
It's awesome that grml-debootstrap recently learned VMEFI and ARM64 support. Now we can iterate based on that.
I don't think this should be solved on the command line parsing level, i.e. unset VMEFI if using --arch amd64? Seems better to refactor, simplify all the related code. But that seems a different request than fixing this. Therefore created a separate issue for that:
From a user perspective it is valid to combine
--vmefi
with--arch arm64
.In that case an unexpected code path will be used.
if
isif [ -n "$VMEFI" ]; then
which means that code path will be used instead of theif [ "$ARCH" = 'arm64' ]; then
code path.It's awesome that grml-debootstrap recently learned VMEFI and ARM64 support. Now we can iterate based on that.
I don't think this should be solved on the command line parsing level, i.e. unset VMEFI if using
--arch amd64
? Seems better to refactor, simplify all the related code. But that seems a different request than fixing this. Therefore created a separate issue for that:--vmefi
--arch arm64
#258The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: