• Issue with EFI and dd


    Hi guys,

    Great job with this distro. I really appreciate being able to use Arch without having to go through the installation process. Antergos is awesome!

    I wanted to inform about an issue (and possible bug) I am experiencing with the testing ISO images (specifically I have tested this with the “antergos-2014.03.30-x86_64.iso” image). If I write the image to a USB flash drive using dd (the command I use is: “sudo dd bs=4M if=./antergos-2014.03.30-x86_64.iso of=/dev/sdb”), the resulting USB drive is bootable, however my EFI computer (its an ASUS P8Z68-M motherboard) will only see the normal BIOS boot for the flash drive, and it won’t give me the option to boot using EFI.

    However, if I produce a USB flash drive (formatted fat32) with this image using unetbootin (from the Arch repo), my motherboard properly sees and can boot the flash drive through EFI (it gives me both options, to do BIOS and EFI boot). Furthermore, I believe that the Arch images, and certainly most other ISO files which support dd work fine with this motherboard when I do the dd, its just the Antergos images which don’t seem to do it using dd. Can anyone shed some light on this?

    In any case, it is a minor issue, since I am installing using EFI on my desktop right now, but it would be easier to use dd

  • Hi guys,

    Great job with this distro. I really appreciate being able to use Arch without having to go through the installation process. Antergos is awesome!

    I wanted to inform about an issue (and possible bug) I am experiencing with the testing ISO images (specifically I have tested this with the “antergos-2014.03.30-x86_64.iso” image). If I write the image to a USB flash drive using dd (the command I use is: “sudo dd bs=4M if=./antergos-2014.03.30-x86_64.iso of=/dev/sdb”), the resulting USB drive is bootable, however my EFI computer (its an ASUS P8Z68-M motherboard) will only see the normal BIOS boot for the flash drive, and it won’t give me the option to boot using EFI.

    However, if I produce a USB flash drive (formatted fat32) with this image using unetbootin (from the Arch repo), my motherboard properly sees and can boot the flash drive through EFI (it gives me both options, to do BIOS and EFI boot). Furthermore, I believe that the Arch images, and certainly most other ISO files which support dd work fine with this motherboard when I do the dd, its just the Antergos images which don’t seem to do it using dd. Can anyone shed some light on this?

    In any case, it is a minor issue, since I am installing using EFI on my desktop right now, but it would be easier to use dd

  • Hi,

    Thanks for your report. We’re aware we have a problem with our ISO in UEFI systems, but unfortunately we don’t have one to test our ISO on.

    Reports like yours are very very helpful, thanks.

    @lots0logs: This has to do with the dual iso problem? I’m totally lost here.

  • AFAIK, if we want our ISO to be universally compatible like Arch’s we will have to start using the “dual” format. I believe @faidoc opted not to use that format because the ISO filesize would be greater than it is now (which is already more than we would like it to be). I completed work locally to create a test dual ISO but haven’t actually had a chance to build it yet. I will try to get to it after work this evening and let you know.

    Another option is to complete a tool like what I wanted to do with Cnchi: First Step that would write the USB manually (create partitions, mount iso & copy files into appropriate places)…this is what UnetBootIn does. If only it would not rename the damn partition labels it would be the best thing to use

    Stay tuned…

    Cheers!

  • @“lots.0.logs”:2h5dkz6j said:

    this is what UnetBootIn does. If only it would not rename the damn partition labels it would be the best[/quote:2h5dkz6j]
    unetbootin?

    for uefi usbs i tend to use rufus it has arch support by using syslinux to boot(it scans and downloads the correct version for the iso)and has options for GPT for EUFI machines(and it has options to change the label and defaults to the name required by the iso

    look here: [url:2h5dkz6j]http://rufus.akeo.ie/[/url:2h5dkz6j]

  • Yes but it’s only for Windows

  • @“lots.0.logs”:2tbh8gtu said:

    Yes but it’s only for Windows
    Lets bug the dev

    nah but heres hoping for mass linux ports of the universe (and a more stable uefi to work with

  • Any UEFI users care to test this ISO and tell me if it boots? If using dd does not produce a bootable image, what about when you format the stick manually as described here: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/USB_Flash_Installation_Media#Using_manual_formatting][0]">[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/US][1] … formatting

    [http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/uefi/antergos-2014.03.31-x86_64.iso][0]">[http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u][2] … x86_64.iso

    Thanks in advance

    [0]: <a href=
    [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/US
    [2]: http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u

  • @“lots.0.logs”:22k0cg1e said:

    Any UEFI users care to test this ISO and tell me if it boots? If using dd does not produce a bootable image, what about when you format the stick manually as described here: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/USB_Flash_Installation_Media#Using_manual_formatting][0]">[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/US][1] … formatting

    [http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/uefi/antergos-2014.03.31-x86_64.iso][0]">[http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u][2] … x86_64.iso

    Thanks in advance

    tested using the manual install guide and working.

    [0]: <a href=
    [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/US
    [2]: http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u

  • Used “dd” method and it properly shows up as “EFI USB Device”.

    Upon selecting it, the default boot option of 2 seconds needs to be increased. That is not enough time to even figure out what you are looking at.

    My first attempt using “Antergos X86_64 UEFI CD” option resulted in NOUVEAU driver saying invalid ROM contents… which is a quirk with my Lenovo Y510P laptop as you know.

    Interestingly, when I rebooted and tried it a second time. I still got the invalid ROM contents messages, but it proceded onto switching to the graphical installer and CNCHI 0.5.29 came up in full resolution. This is the first time I’ve seen it this way, very nice. I’ve always had to use “nomodeset” to even get this far and use a low resolution installer.

    Excellent progress!

  • Okay that’s great news. Thanks for testing!!

  • Hi!

    This ISO boots fine but the installation cannot be completed. Cnchi 0.5.29 fails to install the “linux” package and says:

    “Can’t install necessary packages. Cnchi can’t continue.”

    Any ideas on this?

    Thanks!

  • ok so apparently that was a problem with the git version of the installer cause i tried again now using the uefi iso and the testing.sh script and installed fine! now it boots fine as well

  • @“guitmz”:3qwfh7vn said:

    i tried again now using the uefi iso and the testing.sh script and installed fine! now it boots fine as well [/quote:3qwfh7vn]This is great news. We have put a lot of work into UEFI support. Which iso did you use exactly? How did you make your bootable USB? I’m trying to get a clear understanding of what’s working/not working. Thanks!

  • @“lots.0.logs”:g8zvsfpi said:

    @“guitmz”:g8zvsfpi said:

    i tried again now using the uefi iso and the testing.sh script and installed fine! now it boots fine as well [/quote:g8zvsfpi]This is great news. We have put a lot of work into UEFI support. Which iso did you use exactly? How did you make your bootable USB? I’m trying to get a clear understanding of what’s working/not working. Thanks![/quote:g8zvsfpi]

    Let me give you more details

    I’ve used the iso posted here on page #1: [http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/uefi/antergos-2014.03.31-x86_64.iso][0]">[http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u][1] … x86_64.iso

    Used that cause I was lazy at the moment and didnt wanted to fix the uefi boot so that worked out of the box.

    Created the USB like I always do, with DD on Mac and Linux (worked on both)

    dd if=image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=1m blablabla the usual stuff

    The first time I tried to install, tried with the regular cnchi and with the git one and both gave me the same error (failed to install linux package, installation aborted like i posted above). I don’t know if that was a problem with the installer itself.

    Tried again yesterday and used the git version of the installer (i guess it updated to 0.5.31) and it worked flawless, boot working, everything just like a old school MBR installation

    Im glad you guys achieved that on the installer because as you know Cnch is probably the best installer i`ve ever seen on a linux environment (anaconda is nice as well but its still buggy in the disk partition step).

    Let me know if there is something else I can do to help. One suggestion, please include light-locker on the iso to enable gnome lockscreen with lightdm (no problems on installing it myself but people are lazy haha)

    Thanks!

    [0]: <a href=
    [1]: http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u

  • @“lots.0.logs”:meqz7qzk said:

    Any UEFI users care to test this ISO and tell me if it boots? […]

    [http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/uefi/antergos-2014.03.31-x86_64.iso][0]">[http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u][1] … x86_64.iso
    [/quote:meqz7qzk]

    Wrote the USB stick with SuSE’s ImageWriter, booted, completed EFI dual-boot Windows/Linux installation on Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro. No problems – many thanks!

    Afraid of messing up Windows’ EFI partition, I made a second one for Antergos, which is no doubt why Windows doesn’t appear in the grub menu, though it can be booted via Lenovo’s “Novo” button (which gives access to a boot menu, BIOS, and Windows recovery).

    [0]: <a href=
    [1]: http://repo.antergos.info/iso/testing/u

  • yeah i did created another /boot partition as well (200mb one) but as I used the installer in terminal mode, i was able to see the grub installation output and apparently (havent checked) it was installed WITH windows boot manager aka the original efi partition /dev/sda1 in my case

  • @“guitmz”:2bmdgd7b said:

    yeah i did created another /boot partition as well (200mb one) but as I used the installer in terminal mode, i was able to see the grub installation output and apparently (havent checked) it was installed WITH windows boot manager aka the original efi partition /dev/sda1 in my case[/quote:2bmdgd7b]

    The GUI installer requires the user to select an EFI partition to be mounted as /boot. On the first attempt I couldn’t select my second, 512MB FAT32 non-Windows EFI partition because I had neglected to give it a ‘boot’ flag, so (I presume) it wasn’t seen as an EFI partition.

    I can only say good things about the GUI version of the Cnchi EFI-mode installer, though admittedly I didn’t use it to create my partitions, which for some reason I habitually do with gparted beforehand. My very first experience with Antergos has been delightful.

  • its also good for creating partitions, worked fine every time i tested

    yeah i created /boot/efi (a second one) and it installed in the original one anyway apparently… need to double check this

Posts 19Views 3842
Log in to reply