[syslinux] Syslinux-4.06-pre14

[Ady]

Date sent:      	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:07:34 -0400
Subject:        	Re: [syslinux] Syslinux-4.06-pre14

> On 10/15/2012 16:01, Ady wrote:
> > Now, I wonder what about Paulo and Shao's work on fragmented MFT.
> >
> > There are "./core/fs/ntfs/", "./win32/ntfstest/" and
> > "./win64/ntfstest/" directories. I would guess that the "test" part
> > of the directory names is more appropriate for now?
> 
> Those items are not new.
> 
> 'ntfstest' is just a program which exercises some of the same logic as 
> the Windows installer.  Due to its small size and usefulness for 
> examining NTFS file fragments, it's in Syslinux. That program is 
> unrelated to the Syslinux NTFS logic in core/fs/ntfs/
> 
> A couple of areas for improvement in core/fs/ntfs/ have been identified, 
> and we could see those improvements for the next Syslinux release.
> 
> - Shao Miller

Hi Shao,

Those are all new in relation to 4.05, and since Matt's intention is 
to release 4.06 soon, I just thought the directory names might 
matter.

If those "ntfstest" directories are not really part of the 
Windows-based installers, then MAYBE they should be elsewhere (with 
some respective Makefile or whichever correction if necessary, in 
case they are moved)? I mean, there are directories such as "diag", 
"dosutil", "utils"...

I don't really know where they "should" be, or where they are 
comfortable for their use for tests. I just thought of mentioning it 
before the final.


Matt,

In the 4.06 changelog (NEWS), I think there is a typo.

[quote]
It allow enabling the watchdog and then booting a given image.
[/quote]

Shouldn't it be something like the following?

"It allows enabling the watchdog and then booting a given image."

Also, I don't know if it matters, but ISTM most of the changelog for 
4.06 is only understandable by the developers involved. But, even if 
it matters, I'm not sure how much the text could be improved in this 
regard.

Additionally, during the 4.06 development, there was an improvement 
for SYSLINUX about handling some relative paths (which were already 
handled correctly by ISOLINUX). I don't know if it is worth 
mentioning in the changelog (or maybe it is already part of the 
jargon in there I don't understand?).

Best Regards,
Ady.