[syslinux] Syslinux-5.00-pre9

Ady ady-sf at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 1 12:46:47 PDT 2012


> I've not tried 5.xx either in fear of getting certain disks that are 
> bootable, non-bootable for a while due to some issue. As I prefer the 
> minimalist approach of having as few files as possible, I'd tend to 
> stick to 4.xx branch as 5.xx has ldlinux.c32 for example extra.
> 

Since the current stable version (branch?) is 4.06 and is working for 
you, that's perfectly understandable, even after 5.00 gets out.

> Your mentioning of hugely increased disk sizes for each binary isn't 
> that positive either in deciding to switch or not, as I sometimes add 
> syslinux to bootdisks.
> 
> If files are getting quite a larger disk-size anyway it might be easier 
> for non-CD to stick to using some version of GRUB.
> 
 
To be clear, the increased size is mostly notable for the installers 
themselves. The c32 modules are now (together with their 
dependencies) also bigger, but the absolute increase should not be a 
big problem for most cases. For bootable floppies that are already 
almost full (typically, with DOS drivers and utilities), probably the 
new PATH directive might be useful, or simply stay with 4.xx.

> > Now in 5.00(preN), ldlinux.c32 is initially installed together with
> > ldlinux.sys. My question is whether it can be moved after the
> > installation, and whether the INITIAL CWD depends on the location of
> > ldlinux.sys (in SYSLINUX) or on the location of ldlinux.c32.
> 
> that's interesting indeed, especially if the installer would have the 
> option of only updating the bootsector. Move core files somewhere, run 
> the installer to update bootsector without recreating core files, and 
> see if bootsector finds LDLINUX.SYS, and LDLINUX.SYS finds LDLINUX.C32
> 

I can't comment :( , at least until someone answers my question :) .

> > In the UPX package ( upx.sf.net ), there are several notes (in almost
> > each file included in the package) about potential issues with
> > different types of executable files. I don't know whether those notes
> > are relevant for any file in the Syslinux package.
> 
> As 5.xx series is modular anyway, and likely allows one module to load 
> another one, why not have some kind of UNGZIP.C32 so all other modules 
> can be compressed by ZIP, GZIP, LZMA (7z), LZMA2 (UX) ?
> 
> ldlinux.sys -> ldlinux.c32 -> unzip.c32 -> memdisk.gz -> bootdisk.gz
> 

I don't know if that is possible (I'm not a developer), or if it is 
worth the time of the development team. You would gain, maybe, some 
few KB.

My doubt about (UPX) compression is related mostly to the installers, 
gaining around 200KB or more for each executable file. For those with 
curiosity and free time, check the original values in 4.06 and 
5.00pre9.

> > Just for the sake of testing the potential compression (and without
> > testing any resulting file), the c32 files in 5.00pre9 seem to be not
> > supported. OTOH, the installers seem to be supported, with the
> > resulting executable files being around 44% of the original file.
> 
> Even syslinux64.exe ? UPX v3.08 didn't like it, something about 
> "exe-new". I've got no experience with the linux-based installer, sorry.
> 

Since it was just a simple compression test (I didn't even try to 
actually use the resulting executable files), I took syslinux.exe, 
syslinux.com and some c32 modules (the latter seems not currently 
supported, despite ELF being listed as supported in the UPX site). If 
someone with relevant knowledge answers the question, I may test more 
files and try to use the resulting executable files.

Best Regards,
Ady.




More information about the Syslinux mailing list