[syslinux] Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?

[intrigeri]

Hi,

Ady wrote (13 Jun 2014 16:07:33 GMT) :
> Considering that the Syslinux 
> installers (for BIOS systems) use different file names and that the 
> Syslinux version shall be the same for all Syslinux-related files, 
> they could all be located in one directory all together, including 
> the (BIOS) c32 files, the MBR variants...

I had got it initially, but it's still useful to clarify for
other readers :)

> So, although you could include in the ISO images the same "scattered" 
> paths as GParted/Clonezilla Live, using one (and only one) directory 
> for all Syslinux-related files for BIOS (and another, adequate path 
> for EFI) would be a valid approach too. It depends on how much 
> trouble is for you to maintain your scripts and on how easy the users 
> can update under different circumstances (e.g. using a different 
> distro with a different version of Syslinux so to update TAILS on an 
> external drive, which might also include multiple distributions...).

Our installer/upgrader currently only runs from Tails itself, so we
have a guarantee that the syslinux binary and the c32 modules come
from the very same version of syslinux: they were all dropped into
place at ISO build time. Note that we require a drive to be fully
dedicated to Tails, as we don't want to encourage users to trust other
operating systems not to corrupt Tails that would be installed on the
same drive.

So, in our case, I believe that "scattered" paths and "everything in
a single directory" would work equally well. Now, I think we'll just
follow Tuxboot/Clonezilla lead on that one, mainly in the hope that
other USB installers running on Windows standardize on these paths,
and then none of them have to special-case Tails for this reason only.

Thanks again!

Cheers,
--
intrigeri