alphapuggle
joined 1 year ago
Anal (Ubuntu)
Because at this point, if you're still on it you're taking it up the ass from Canonical
If I had stopped reading after 2 seconds I wouldn't know it was the lemonade, something that should be put front and center because if I was a drinker of minute maid zero sugar lemonade and I saw "Coke recalls popular zero sugar drink", I wouldn't've bothered reading further.
Headline could be written better, I warned my friend who's sister is a diabetic before realizing its just the lemonade
Kentucky fried human
Aaron Schwartz killed himself over punishments for less
It appears that once-upon-a-time, fedora's BTRFS would create separate subvolumes for /home, /boot, and /. Looking at this list, I don't think that the boot subvolume is where all of the boot files are, just the grub2 configs. I'm assuming your kernel and initramfs are stored in /mnt/root/boot. Is there an efi folder in /mnt/root/boot? It's possible that the original install on your surface go 1 wasn't installed UEFI, and as such the folder doesn't exist (or, it's there but in caps)
If you could send a screenshot of ll /mnt/root/boot too that'd be great
For context, my /boot has the grub2 folder that exists in your boot subvolume, as well everything else needed for boot
if your system wasn't installed UEFI, you're likely missing the efi folder. If this is the case, nbd, we can generate it
Colors on "printers" needs swapped
Interesting, both of my F40 installs with btrfs only have a root folder, but it looks like yours has created separate ones for /, /home, and /boot. run ll /mnt/boot; ll /mnt/home; ll /mnt/root so I can take a quick look at where things are located. My best guess is that sda1 gets mounted to /mnt/boot, while everything else (/dev, /sys, etc) gets mounted to /mnt/root
Since you're using btrfs, there is likely another subfolder under /mnt. ll /mnt will tell you this, but the drive isn't still mounted from the other day. When you're mounting the EFI partition, you're going to want to mount it to that folder, and not /mnt itself (/mnt/root/boot/efi, instead of /mnt/boot/efi) same for the binds (/dev, /proc, /run, etc)
Yup, should be the same release, just using a different token and therefore needs approved separately