[syslinux] global APPEND directive

[Ady]

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/11/2013 05:23 AM, Ady wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I am more confused now, because the behavior of the global APPEND
> >> > directive seems inconsistent between a cfg file and the command
> >> > prompt.
> >> >
> >> > In a cfg file, there are multiple ways to override the global append.
> >> > In the command prompt, there seems to be no way at all to override
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's correct.
> >>
> >> Global APPEND was a feature copied for LILO, and by and large it was a
> >> mistake.  If I would have done it all over, I wouldn't even have had an
> >> APPEND command but rather have had each KERNEL statement be the full
> >> command line.
> >>
> >>       -hpa
> >
> > Well, that's the history. In _part_, the APPEND section of the
> > command, or the final full command, seem "the same" in this context.
> >
> > I am still interested in possible solutions, or at least workarounds,
> > to the questions:
> >
> > 1_ From the command prompt, is there any method to override the
> > global APPEND?
> 
> iirc, none.
 
That would be part of the inconsistency I am seeing. There should be 
some workaround / solution for the command prompt.
 
> 
> > 2_ In the cfg file, is there any method to merge a global APPEND with
> > a specific APPEND stated after a specific LABEL (kernel)?
> 
> iirc, that should just work.

 Could you please post some simple example? If such "merging" 
possibility is somehow available, I have not been able to replicate 
such "merging" behavior. That's why I am asking whether some 
workaround / alternative might exist.

> 
> > For the second question, would "ONERROR" be a potential "workaround"?
> > Are there any other directives or c32 modules that would help achieve
> > the desired results?
> >
> > Of course, if there are real "solutions" for each of both situations,
> > it would be much better (this is not just curiosity; I indeed have
> > practical cases in mind).
> 
> What version(s)?
> 
 Are you asking for a specific Syslinux version? Since I would tend 
to think all "current" versions behave the same in this regard, then 
let's assume 5.xx, just in case any potential improvement could be 
added.

TIA,
Ady.