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

Robert Yang liezhi.yang at windriver.com
Thu Dec 25 00:53:57 PST 2014



On 12/25/2014 04:14 PM, Ady wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Thanks for the explanation, and please see my comments inline.

>
> 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

Add hpa in the loop, unfortunately, once the patches are added
to linux/syslinux-nomtools, then the e2fsprogs' libraries are required.

I'm fine to add a e2fs/syslinux. At the moment before we get a final
decision, I will go on working on added the patches to linux/syslinux-nomtools,
it should be easy to split it from linux/syslinux-nomtools to e2fs/syslinux,
and I will split it at once if we decide to do that.

// Robert

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>
>


More information about the Syslinux mailing list