Fedora 19/20, UEFI, Lenovo X120e - BootLoaderError: failed to set new efi boot target

[kfiresmith]

So I'm seeing the same issue that many are seeing with UEFI build attempts in bugzillas such as this one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006304

Some have alluded to clearing the NVRAM the UEFI uses in order to allow space for the bootloader target to be installed into UEFI. Apparently this started w/ Fedora 19 due to the Samsung brick debacle and any NVRAM at 50% capacity or more is now disallowed for writing to avoid bricking certain Samsung models.

Anyhow - anyone got advice for how to clear or clean up the NVRAM on my Lenovo X120e?

Thanks!

[fpmurphy]

Create a bootable DVD or USB disk with a UEFI shell on it and boot into the shell. You can then see all your UEFI NVRAM variables and delete some of them using either command line utilities or the various custom UEFI utilities you can find on the Internet.

Be aware, you need to know exactly what you are doing here. It is very easy to brick your system by deleting or modifying the incorrect variable. There is no publicly available documentation available for the Lenovo-specific UEFI variables.

[srs5694]

The Arch Linux wiki has documentation that elaborates on the procedure that fpmurphy recommends:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...Interface#bcfg

If you page up a bit from there, you'll find download links to EFI shell binaries. (You'll need a version 2 shell; the older version 1 shells lack the bcfg command.) There's no need to deal with Lenovo-specific variables, since all UEFI-based PCs use the same boot list format. (Macs use their own quirky method, though; for them, you'd need to use the "bless" command in Linux or in OS X to register a boot loader.)

[R3v0lut10nary]

EFI has turned out to be such a piece of crap. Why can't these things be perfected and standardized before ramming them down our throats? These problems are not minor ones that you can easily work around or learn to live with - since they leave you with an un-bootable computer.

My computer has a weird implementation of EFI, which I've never quite been able to figure out. And there's no BIOS compatibility option, or I would have switched to that from the start. I've never been able to get BIOS mode to work with GPT though.

[andresimi]

I was just thinking: am I the only one unable to install fedora 20 64bits on UEFI GPT systems??? Ubuntu is just easier to do. I tried in 4 different computers, using Desktop Live or DVD images and all (in the ocasions that the pendrive could boot) gave the "bootloaader stage1 target device" even I had manually created a separeted UEFI boot partition.
The only way I could do it is using grub from a dualbooting with ubuntu in one machine. On the others I just went back to ubuntu gnome.
How are you being able to install fedora 20 singleboot (feeling so stupid)?? I hope by fedora 21 these installation process become easier.
Thanx

[W7CCE]

I agree with these posts, but no one goes far enough to tell it like it really is. Fedora is probably the crappiest distribution of Linux in the marketplace. You can't even build installers that work (I just spent the morning trying to get the Mint Cinnamon spin to install. I am finally giving up. The installer is just pure junk. It looks like it was written by an 8th grader (because in the 9th grade it would work and work correctly, and have a better interface). If you can't fix the installer and make it work for FC-22, what business do you have bringing out FC-23? Bottom line, since about FC-14 Fedora has been dog ****. It really went out of control when you started with GNOME 3 and its continued down the rat hole ever since. Pure garbage. Applications have stopped advancing, people had really lost their enthusiasm. Fedora almost had Windows on the run years ago. No more. All I can say is thank God for Mint, Ubuntu, and Debian. Like everything else in this country, Fedora is simply a mass of confusion without direction or strategy or competent management.

You might fix it, IF you generate new versions once per year, and make it a goal to have ALL the bugs out of the prior version before you introduce a new version. Then you might actually test your installer to make sure it works, and DO SOMETHING about the stupid, incompetent, non-functional installer.

Frankly, I'd be ashamed to ship a product like FC-22 when I worked at Digital Equipment - but it would never have gotten through the process anyway. You need some standards but the first one is, FULLY DOCUMENTED, FULLY TESTED, AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL.

Otherwise, you are WASTING the intellect of your best designers, who deserve to have their talent recognized and used by the broad marketplace. You are keeping genius covered up by the incompetence of management. Can you image if Boeing was run like this? We'd still be using bi-planes. They might have jet engines on them, but they'd be bi-planes.

/Len