[syslinux] [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device

Robert Yang liezhi.yang at windriver.com
Wed Jan 7 17:23:41 PST 2015



On 01/08/2015 09:19 AM, Ady wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2015 02:28 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add the extX
>>>>> support
>>>>> to mtools/syslinux:
>>>>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the libext2fs.
>>>>
>>>> Renaming it is not a problem.
>>>
>>> Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe userspace/syslinux?  Ady is right, that we need to update the
>> documentation, but the same thing happened when unix/syslinux was
>> renamed linux/syslinux...
>>
>> 	-hpa
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Syslinux mailing list
>> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
>> Unsubscribe or set options at:
>> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>>
>
> The "mtools/syslinux" location is not just a matter of updating
> documentation. Phrases such as "the mtools installer" and "the nomtools
> installer" are frequently used.
>
> Past changes regarding the installers have been already a source of
> problems, specially those changes that were not backward-compatible.
> Even documenting such changes in a clear manner for final users has not
> been as simple as it should.
>
> Additionally, every time there is a name or location change inside the
> official Syslinux distribution archives, a lot of (support) issues come
> up. So-called "tutorials" are suddenly outdated and users come back
> complaining that something is not working, or broke, or there is a
> bug... The changes in the directory tree structure that were introduced
> with version 6.00 (bios/efi32/efi64) are just "one" example (ask users,
> and package maintainers who are still receiving bug reports just
> because of this).
>
> Before the release of version 6.00, there were already so many changes
> that perhaps also changing the name / location (and dependencies) of
> the "mtools installer for SYSLINUX" might have been "just one of
> several" changes. Now version 6.03 has been finally adopted by popular
> Linux distributions, including Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu (which are all
> still receiving new "bug reports" because of the directory tree
> changes, among others, compared to their prior package version, 4.05).
>
> So, changing the name, location and/or dependencies of what has been
> known as "the mtools installer" would indeed be a problem for users,
> with repercussions on time to be spent for supporting them. And such
> problems (and resources to be spent) would be very tangible/present for
> at least the following 2-4 years, considering that Debian 8 (with
> Syslinux 6.03) is only in it's pregnancy stages.
>
> Even if a new installer would replace what has been known as "the
> mtools" installer, I would tend to think that at least one (or even
> two) versions should be released with both, so users could actually
> test the new installer and report bugs and problems. In the meantime,
> documentation could be gradually updated, and eventually/optionally the
> old installer would be considered deprecated and then deleted in a
> future version.
>
> This is not just "some naming change while maintaining the same
> features and dependencies". And even if it was just that, how many
> users' scripts (and packages) are we willing to screw (yet again),
> right now (after 6.03 has been finally adopted)?
>
> I am not against changes. I hope for improvements. As final user (who
> BTW is still stuck at version 4.07 because of bugs in 6.xx), I am just
> raising a point: let's try to introduce improvements while maintaining
> as much backward compatibility as possible.
>
> Perhaps the mtools/syslinux installer should remain, and a new
> installer could be introduced too? It might help with some transition
> period, updating documents, packages, dependencies, bug reports...

Sounds good to me, e2fs/syslinux is more easier to maintain, I'd like to
add an e2fs/syslinux if possible.

// Robert

>
> TIA,
> Ady.
>
>


More information about the Syslinux mailing list