[syslinux] [PULL 0/8] MultiFS suppport for BIOS and EFI

Paulo Alcantara pcacjr at zytor.com
Mon Aug 10 07:52:31 PDT 2015


On Mon, August 10, 2015 11:45 am, Paulo Alcantara wrote:
> Ady, Peter, et al.
>
> On Fri, July 24, 2015 5:28 pm, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote:
>>> >>
>>> > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
>>> > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should
>>> not* be
>>> > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this
>>> patchset
>>> > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
>>> > introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you
>>> think?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Step 1 is to commit it on a branch.
>>>
>>> 	-hpa
>>>
>>
>> Without _a lot_ of testing, applying the patch "as-is" is not the best
>> first step, IMHO. A separated branch sounds at least more reasonable in
>> comparison.
>>
>> Additionally, the patch set seems to affect more-than-just-an-isolated
>> file / feature, which means that incorporating other patches (still
>> pending, or future ones) based on the current stable 6.03 would be more
>> difficult, generally speaking.
>>
>> One important matter to consider is the syntax (i.e. users). A future
>> discussion / email would sound something as "we already introduced a
>> certain syntax for 'hd' and 'partitions', so now we are having troubles
>> with supporting additional nomenclatures". Examples are: using space
>> character(s) as alternative to the suggested comma (as chain.c32), or
>> using labels and/or UUIDs (as chain.c32). Once a certain syntax is
>> established for final users, improvements are more difficult if they
>> are not considered in advance.
>>
>> I understand the desire of adding the multifs feature. I fear that
>> (other) pending issues / regressions will be kept alive "forever".
>>
>> BTW, having a branch with this patch set "as-is" would mean propagating
>> (even more) the unnecessary "fancy" forms of the term, instead of plain
>> "multifs". Please, please, KISS, "multifs".
>
> Raphael and I we're planning to integrate syntax used by chain.c32 module
> to support UUIDs, labels, MBR ids, GPT partition's GUIDs, etc. as we get
> some free time to do so.
>
> We've already pushed out a few patches on top this one that fix EFI
> support to correctly handle partitions outside the disk where Syslinux was
> installed in, and renaming of "MultiFS" to "multifs".
>
> There's also a branch where all multifs work is being done at:
> git://git.zytor.com/users/pcacjr.syslinux multifs-for-upstream

The repo is actually: git://git.zytor.com/users/pcacjr/syslinux.git
(sorry for the typo :-) )

Paulo

-- 
Paulo Alcantara, C.E.S.A.R
Speaking for myself only.


More information about the Syslinux mailing list