[syslinux] Confusion on lpxelinux vs. gpxelinux vs. ipxe vs gpxe.

[Gene Cumm]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Michael Brown <mcb30 at ipxe.org> wrote:
> On 25/10/15 01:04, Gene Cumm wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Michael Brown via Syslinux
>> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, not a fork: http://git.ipxe.org/ipxe.git/commitdiff/8406115
>>
>>
>> A fork is a fork, regardless the reasons behind it (yes, I have some
>> understanding in this case).  iPXE is based off of forking further
>> development as of a certain gPXE commit with some backporting of gPXE
>> development to iPXE.
>
>
> From my perspective, a "fork" is when you take someone else's code and spin
> it off into a new project.  Taking what is primarily your own code and
> renaming it does not, for me, count as a "fork".  Maybe we're just using
> different definitions of the word.

A lot of people have a looser view.  The gPXE code was under the
EtherBoot project.  New project with same code led me to label it a
fork.  Development on gPXE could have continued (regardless what
actually happened).  I do not deny the amount of work you did for gPXE
(let the commit history speak for this).

> Anyway, to answer the questions of substance in this thread:

Thank you.

> You can construct an ipxelinux.0 as an updated replacement for gpxelinux.0,
> to solve the problems relating to the old gPXE code present in gpxelinux.0.
> However, there's not much motivation to do so. Instead, you should either
> use lpxelinux.0, or use iPXE itself.

gPXE hasn't been removed mostly from history.  Not enough testing of
lpxelinux.0 has happened and been recognized to make it something that
feels like a good decision.

-- 
-Gene