[syslinux] [PATCH 3/3] syslinux: support isolinux configuration files
Pete Batard
pete at akeo.ie
Tue Feb 14 08:26:57 PST 2012
Hi Thomas,
On 2012.02.14 14:43, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> NAK.
>
> If we want to unify configuration file names, we first need to unify
> behaviour:
>
> 1) "Working directory"
> * ISOLINUX: Working directory is /, config file is hardcoded to a
> restricted set of paths.
> * SYSLINUX: Working directory is the directory the config file lives,
> the same where ldlinux.sys lives.
> * PXELINUX: Working directory is the "prefix", config file is given as a
> relative path.
>
> 2) ".." support:
> * ISOLINUX: No ".." support in paths
> * SYSLINUX: ".." in paths supported
> * PXELINUX: No ".." support in paths
These are very good points, that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the info.
Obvioulsy, since my interest is with isolinux -> syslinux only, pxelinux
is not really a concern, so its behaviour doesn't matter in my scope.
With regards to isolinux not supporting ".." and having a working
directory of /, I think this works to my advantage, since isolinux
config files are unlikely to use relative paths if they only go down
(but there are probably some ISOs that will fail conversion as a result,
so that's good to know). Therefore, I don't see it as a major concern
for what I intended the patch for.
Also, I am installing ldlinux.sys in / always. If the working directory
is where ldlinux.sys lives, then an isolinux -> syslinux conversion
performed with ldlinux.sys in root should be okay. However, I am not
sure I understand your "Working directory is the directory the config
file lives, the same where ldlinux.sys lives" point. What is the working
directory when ldlinux.sys is in / but syslinux.cfg resides in /syslinux/?
Now, I fully agree that unifying configuration files would be for the
best. However it won't solve my problem of using syslinux to work with
_existing_ non unified ISO images, especially when (limited) tests seem
to indicate that the proposed patch along with an ldlinux.sys in /
achieves the expected results.
Then again, since I can easily patch syslinux to my needs, whether these
changes are accepted or not is not a major concern. But it might be
necessary to clarify the scope of what we would like the patch to be
part of.
If the patch is to be part of config file unification, or arbitrary
conversion between pxe/iso/sys, then this definitely won't do.
If on the other hand, the intent is isolinux -> syslinux usage, I'm
hoping it can still be considered. That is, unless we see it as likely
to introduce more issues down the line...
Regards,
/Pete
More information about the Syslinux
mailing list