[syslinux] [5.10] PXE + dhcp opts 209, 210 and path issues in tftp/http

[Ady]

> On Wed, 12 Jun, at 05:01:13PM, Ady wrote:
> > Perhaps the following is just a crazy idea... How about no 
> > path-separator in the cfg file, and instead use multiple PATH 
> > directives for each path in the cfg file?
> > 
> > Instead of the previous:
> > PATH first_path:2nd_path
> > 
> > now just use:
> > PATH first_path
> > PATH 2nd_path
> 
> You can actually do this already - multiple PATH directives are
> concatenated. But I think there's still value in allowing users to
> specify multiple entries with one PATH.
> 
> -- 
> Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 

Yes, I know I can use multiple PATH directives. I shall emphasize my 
point in a better way.

What I mean is, to discard the possibility to write multiple paths in 
the same PATH directive. The path-separator in the cfg file would be 
more accurately described as "path-ending", which would be either LF, 
CR, or any combination of LF and CR in any order.

In other words, multiple paths would need multiple PATH directives in 
separated lines, and their priority would be established by the order 
in which they are written in the cfg file. I don't think it is such a 
big deal for the final user. Instead of using the "previous" ":", 
just start a new line with a new PATH directive. Discard the 
"path-separator" concept from the PATH directive for the final user.

As I attempted to express in my previous email, I don't know if 
imposing LF and/or CR as "path-ending" (restricting the syntax "to 
one path per PATH directive line") would actually solve anything or 
whether at least would reduce potential collisions (":", ";", etc.). 

If it simplifies code maintenance, I think in this case it would not 
be a big problem for users. The cfg file and the directive syntax 
would still be simple enough.

Best Regards,
Ady.