[syslinux] Sysinux 6 will not boot ISOs on BIOS (i.e. pre-UEFI) systems

[Ady]

> I'm the developer of manjaroiso, the tool we use to build our install 
> medias for Manjaro Linux.
> During our testings we found out, that syslinux6 won't work on older 
> hardware. I've a new Lenovo i7 notebook which booted up our images 
> just fine. Even with syslinux6. On my other PCs I got similar error 
> messages as Carl got.
 
 (snip)
 
> 
> In manjaro-testing we have currently syslinux 6.02-6 but we tested it 
> with syslinux 6.02-4.
> Changlog you can find here: 
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/log/trunk?h=packa
> ges/syslinux
> 
> kind regards
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 11/23/2013 03:30 PM, Carl Duff wrote:
>     It occured with every BIOS system I tested on (none of them Dell):
> 
>     1. HP G62 laptop (i3)
>     2. Samsung RV520 (i3)
 
 (snip)
 
> 
>     > It is impossible to boot Linux-based ISOs that use Syslinux 6.02 
>     via CD or
>     > DVD on older - non-UEFI - systems. Any attempt to do so will result 
>     in the
>     > following error message: ISOLINUX 6.02 ETCDisolinux: Disk error 01, 
>     AX =
>     > 4279, drive FE
 
 (snip)
 
>     >
>     > It is still possible to boot / install via USB data-stick, and in a 
>     Virtual
>     > Machine. Where using a newer PC with UEFI, even in Legacy mode (and 
>     with
>     > the UEFI partition completely removed), ISOs using Syslinux 6.02 
>     will still
>     > go through the UEFI menu.
>     >
 
I have several comments, which might not solve the issue, but perhaps 
they are a starting point.

0_ Giving the current context, in the following comments when I refer 
to version 6.02, I mean the latest version available in Arch Linux 
(6.02-6 as I am writing this). This is relevant not only because 
Manjaro is based on Arch, but because the Syslinux package in Arch 
already contains patches that are not yet included in the official 
upstream archives for version 6.02 in kernel.org.

1_ Since you take the Syslinux files from the /bios/ subdirectory, 
and some mix up seems to happen in some EFI systems under 
"Compatibility Support Module" (CSM, aka Legacy BIOS mode), then at 
least one test should be performed without adding *any* EFI-related 
"stuff". Such testing ISO image should not contain grub-related 
booting files, nor Syslinux efi files, nor any of the EFI-related 
paths. In other words, a test with Syslinux 6.02 BIOS files (and 
paths) *only*.

2_ Since the same problematic systems seem to be booting OK from USB 
drives, the basic testing ISO should be ISOLINUX-only, not isohybrid. 
Avoiding isohybrid on this testing ISO could reduce the chance that 
somehow the normal ISOLINUX boot sectors might be screwed up.

3_ When building the ISO image, only one set of boot parameters 
should be used; those for ISOLINUX only. So, only one 
"eltorito_boot_image", no "eltorito-alt-boot", no 
"-eltorito-platform"... In other words, build the testing ISO for a 
BIOS-only system with ISOLINUX 6.02 BIOS files only.

4_ The only purpose of this testing ISO is to identify whether 
ISOLINUX 6.02 behaves differently than ISOLINUX 4.07, specially in 
those problematic systems. So isolinux.cfg should be as basic and 
simple as possible; no menus (e.g. no gfxboot, no [vesa]menu), no 
automatic boots (use 'prompt 1', no timeouts), no automatic 'DISPLAY' 
nor 'SAY' directives and the like, no screen resolutions in special / 
specific graphic mode... The initial screen should be able to display 
a copyright and version line regarding ISOLINUX and a "boot:" prompt; 
that's all.

We all might have more comments / questions, depending on the results 
with such basic image. It may depend on the optical media used (CD 
vs. DVD), burning speed (I suggest 4x; for a minimal testing ISO, 
using higher speeds is not necessary and might produce bad results), 
and the condition of the hardware (old optical drives might produce 
bad optical media).

My point is, we could narrow down the problem, depending on the 
result of a _minimal_ ISOLINUX 6.02 BIOS-only ISO / media in 
comparison with an equivalent ISOLINUX 4.07 ISO / media tested on the 
same problematic system.

@Phil,

Could you please also post which exact systems are failing with the 
"Disk error 01, AX = 4279, drive FE" (or similar) error?

Thank you and Best Regards,
Ady.

PS: As others have mentioned,

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text,
especially the archives of mailing lists.
Q: Why is Top-posting such a bad thing?

"No one ever says, 'I can't read that ASCII(plain text) e-mail you 
sent me.'"