[syslinux] PATH directive

[Ady]

> 
> > On Thu, 18 Dec, at 07:47:18PM, Ady wrote:
> > > I have a question about the PATH directive. In fact, the question is 
> > > not about how it is currently working, but about its intention or goal, 
> > > or how it was supposed to work (or how it was thought about for the 
> > > 5.00 release).
> > > 
> > > Previous discussions about the PATH directive in the Syslinux Mailing 
> > > List, and its documentation (e.g. "PATH rules") left on me the 
> > > impression that it was intended for the Library Modules (only?).
> >  
> > Yes, the original intention was to make it possible to load module
> > dependencies where the module and its dependency didn't live in the
> > same directory.
> > 
> > > While testing the PATH directive with Syslinux 6.03, I can see it is 
> > > not only working for Library Modules, but also for other c32 files too. 
> > > If a c32 file is not found according to the relative path used for it 
> > > in the configuration file, then the referenced c32 file is searched-for 
> > > according to the PATH directive.
> > > 
> > > So, was the PATH directive supposed to search for Library Modules 
> > > (dependencies) only? Or for any c32 file? Or for any file whatsoever 
> > > (e.g. kernel, initrd, memdisk,...)?
> >  
> > It only works for .c32 files, but no distinction is made between a
> > module and its dependencies. All .c32 are "ELF modules".
>  
>  
> 
> Thank you. Believe it or not, this clarifies a lot, as the "PATH rules" 
> documentation is currently not clear enough about it. Now we can 
> improve the documentation, and perform some tests.
>  
>  
> > 
> > > And, for files referenced in the configuration files (i.e. 
> > > non-dependencies files) using absolute notation paths, was the PATH 
> > > directive supposed to search for them too? (If this last question is 
> > > not clear enough, I'll post an example; please let me know.)
> > 
> > Yes, the PATH directive is used as a fallback if the file denoted by an
> > absolute path doesn't exist.
> > 
> > If the file *does* exist at the absolute path, the directories in PATH
> > are not searched - absolute paths take priority.
>  
>  
> So, my first (still incomplete and still inaccurate) attempt to write 
> some rules about the PATH directive, and ask about remaining doubts!...
> 
 (snip)

I realize that my prior email about the PATH directive might seem 
"too-long-to-be-interested" for some subscribers to this Syslinux 
Mailing List. I am confident that the time required to read it is 
longer than the time necessary to actually answer the questions I 
posted.

TIA,  
Ady.