[syslinux] Manually installing syslinux?

Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha strange at nsk.no-ip.org
Wed Jun 30 07:57:57 PDT 2004

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:38:35AM -0500, Nick Bartos wrote:
> >
> > A static binary should have no dependencies on the installed glibc.
> >
> You're right, but it still depends on the running kernel.  I know this is
> so because I didn't know of the problem until I tested it myself.  I got a
> "fatal: kernel too old" message when running a new syslinux binary which
> was compiled with the newer glibc with newer kernel options.
> > As a test, a syslinux binary compiled on a FC2 system runs well on a RHL
> > 7.1, either shared or static, and the static version runs fine on a RHL 6
> > based system. The shared doesn't run on that older system.
> >
> I believe this is the case because redhat keeps their backward
> compatibility set to max for obvious reasons.  I have a small system with
> no package manager that does not have the ability to accept other
> (compiled) programs, so I am not worried about compatibility as much as I
> am optimization & performance.
> I can just leave the kernel compatibility low when compiling all versions
> of glibc for now, but I want to fix this eventually.
> I have contemplated compiling a separate glibc for use with the new
> syslinux binary, and using a different glibc for the rest of the new
> system, but that just seemed a bit messy/pain.

You can use dietlibc for syslinux. It's small and doesn't interfere with

It compiles, but I haven't tested if it works. But I see no reason not to.

Or, if possible, reorder the updates so that syslinux would be in a workable
state when updating the boot loader.

Luciano Rocha

Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.

More information about the Syslinux mailing list