[syslinux] global APPEND directive

Gene Cumm gene.cumm at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 18:26:19 PST 2013


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Workaround: never use a global APPEND.

>> > 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.

Sorry, recalling incorrectly.  Once cmd.c32 is reworked, I'd probably
recommend doing something creative with it.

>> > 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.

-- 
-Gene


More information about the Syslinux mailing list