[syslinux] patch, doc/{syslinux, menu}.txt: Clarifying the DEFAULT directive

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 16:07 -0500, Gene Cumm wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2011 2:12 PM, "Regid Ichira" <regid23 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Mon, 11/28/11, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > --- a/doc/menu.txt    2011-04-19 00:24:17.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/doc/menu.txt    2011-11-27 17:36:02.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -307,8 +307,8 @@ DEFAULT label
> >        START.
> >
> >        For backwards compatibility with earlier versions of
> Syslinux,
> > -       this directive is ignored unless the configuration file also
> > -       contains a UI directive.
> > +       this directive is ignored only by the MENU system, unless
> the
> > +       configuration file also contains a UI directive.
> 
> This explicit specification is redundant based on doc/menu.txt
> implying differences that apply to the simple menu (vesa)menu.c32
> modules.  I feel it's unnecessary.

Yes, so do I.

> > --- a/doc/syslinux.txt 2011-04-19 00:24:17.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/doc/syslinux.txt 2011-11-27 17:10:54.000000000 +0200
> 
> > +        in at the "boot:" prompt.  A (CLI) label can be stated
> instead
> > +        of kernel options... .  The LABEL directive is described
> below.
> 
> The "(CLI)" part is unnecessary.  The simple menu system requires
> these labels.  I think the following is clearer:
> 
> 'A LABEL may be used instead of "kernel options...".'
> 
> Or perhaps: 'A LABEL should be used instead of "kernel options...".'

In fact, the documentation is correct as it stands.  The DEFAULT
directive sets the default command line, which is interpreted exactly as
if it had been typed at the "boot:" prompt.  I think it's a mistake to
attempt to re-enumerate everything that means in the documentation for
DEFAULT; there are quite a few settings which affect how the command
line is processed, and more may be added in the future.

About the only thing that _might_ be worth mentioning again here is that
the simple menu system in fact requires this to be a label, and does not
process options.  However...


> > +        doc/menu.txt also describes potential aspects of the
> DEFAULT
> > +        directive.
> 
> Unnecessary and out of context.  I feel a more generic reference to
> doc/menu.txt or no reference at all would be more appropriate.  If you
> are configuring for the simple menu system, doc/syslinux.txt comes
> first with doc/menu.txt supplementing for simple menu system
> specifics.

Again, I agree.

-- Jeff