Question on antiX Live boot architecture

On the heels of the antiX Live boot technique question originated by Robin in the separate thread:
While digging into the Robin’s issue where antiX Live created with Live-USB-Maker is not able to boot on his machine, while the USB stick created with Unetbootin boots just fine I performed a separate experiment, which presents a question on the actual purpose of the 49M ANTIX-UEFI Fat32 partition:
– Built an USB antiX 21 stick with just one ext4 partition, containing antiX folder, along with boot and EFI folders. The boot folder contains exlinux and grub. Extlinux folder was built in a standard for extlinux way as outlined by Christophe. EFI folder contains the standard BOOT subfolder with the four efi files as stock antiX Live.
– Having built such custom antiX Live stick with just one ext4 partition, containing all such pieces, with no separate 49M ANTIX-UEFI Fat32 partition I tested such stick booting in both legacy MBR machines and UEFI machine. Both booted correctly to antiX 21. Just to clarify – as I understand Extlinux folder vs. original Syslinux in such composition should not matter as extlinux and syslinux are nowadays one and the same thing and use the same files…

So my question to antiX architects is: What exactly is the purpose of the separate ANTIX-UEFI 49M Fat32 partition with esp flag?
In my test case this partition appears to be redundant, but I trust there must have been some purpose for it I am missing?
Any insight into this boot architecture would be greatly appreciated…

Read more here: Source link