[syslinux] [PATCH 0/8] extlinux: support unmounted ext2/3/4 filesystem

[Ady]

> 
> Hi Ady,
> 
> Thank you very much, I prefer this one, add the extN support to
> linux/syslinux-nomtools, create a new "e2fs/syslinux" may make things
> more complicated for the user, I will make it as:
> 
> 1) If it is a extN device, then root privilege is not required.
> 2) Otherwise work as before.
> 
> Any suggestions is appreciated.
> 
> // Robert
> 
 
I am not sure that a different installer would make things more 
complicated to users. I don't see why.

I have no "say" (other than my personal opinion) about what "should" 
happen, or how each installer "should" work.

But I would like to clarify (or remind) why things are currently 
working as they are.

The use-case you are presenting here is valid: a user wants to install 
SYSLINUX (EXTLINUX) on ext2/3/4 without requiring root permissions. 
This sounds equivalent/similar to: install SYSLINUX on FAT without 
requiring root permissions. The 'mtools/syslinux' installer responds to 
the latter.

The 'linux/syslinux-nomtools' installer aims at being "standalone". The 
intention is to avoid requesting additional dependencies (as the other 
installers do). To be able to perform the installation without 
additional dependencies, the nomtools installer requests additional 
privileges, so to be able to use system calls. In other words, 
"something gotta give".

In contrast, the 'mtools/syslinux' installer provides a solution for 
the alternative case: it has dependencies (mtools) but requires only 
unprivileged write permissions.

Adding e2fs (e2fsprogs or the respective library) as dependency to the 
'linux/syslinux-nomtools' installer would go against the reasoning to 
having this installer. This is why, to be able to keep current 
reasoning, a new 'e2fs/syslinux' seems a valid possibility.

If, after your (future) patches, the 'linux/syslinux-nomtools' 
installer would still work in FAT without requiring (read as 
"complaining about") e2fsprogs' libraries at all, then it is up to 
Peter (hpa) to decide whether this behavior would still be accepted, as 
it would break the concept of being "standalone", at least for extN. 
Unfortunately, even if this behavior would be accepted, the 
'linux/syslinux-nomtools' installer would still list e2fsprogs (or a 
library from it) as dependency, whether the user has the intention to 
use it on FAT only or not.

Let me present a use-case different than the one you are presenting 
here. "A user should be able to install SYSLINUX (EXTLINUX) on ext2/3/4 
without additional dependencies". As with the FAT case, the answer 
should be to have a "standalone" installer using system calls, i.e. 
requiring root permissions. This use-case would be resolved by patching 
'linux/syslinux-nomtools' to support extN.

So, I hope I am clarifying why a different installer (responding to a 
different use-case, as you are presenting here), would be a valid 
possibility.

Now it is up to Syslinux's developers (mainly hpa).

Thank you and Best Regards,
Ady.