When I boot kernel 6.3.0-1, there is a kernel warning:
memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=1 'systemd'
Is this good or bad?
When I boot kernel 6.3.0-1, there is a kernel warning:
memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=1 'systemd'
Is this good or bad?
I see this in my journal too.
output of Kernel 6.3…0-1
zgrep CONFIG_BOOTSPLASH /proc/config.gz
`# CONFIG_BOOTSPLASH is not set
Output of Kernel 6.3
output on Kernel 6.2.12-1
zgrep CONFIG_BOOTSPLASH /proc/config.gz
'CONFIG_BOOTSPLASH=y
Yes, we plan to drop an unmaintained feature that currently requires 16 patches to work.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea!
No, not really. It just wasn’t re-enabled for the stable kernel. Often patches are temporarily skipped for building RC kernels.
Plymouth can do, but it starts a bit slower than Bootsplash.
Plymouth has more advantages over Bootsplash:
Support encryption with LUKS in boot theme.
More custom themes.
Load a vendor logo from BIOS.
I like the bootsplash-manjaro-elegant, can I use it in Plymouth?
Yes, I think I found some themes for manjaro, I will try them with Plymouth.
bootsplah have 5 years with no maintenance
I leave boot without a bootsplah or plymouth. ::
Bootsplash
was an experiment from SUSE. They wanted to have an alternative to
plymouth
. I was also looking for some similar and got in contact with the author. Back then he developed it and I did some tests and usage. SUSE never shipped it as
plymouth
was in the end good enough. Also the vendor logo support was added at some point.
Bootsplash
works fine on the original Pinephone but broke for some reason with 6.2 kernel on the Pinephone Pro.
Also upstream removed some part to make
Bootsplash
work, hence I had to revert some stuff to get it work still. So yes
bootsplash
itself is not maintained but still works in some cases.
We can now argue if that is meaningful or not to have it.
