[syslinux] keytab-lilo: update to support kbd 2.0.3 format

[poma]

On 08.03.2016 01:02, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> 
>> It is a "generic example" which differs from the "actual example" on Fedora. ;)
>> Someone may favor wiki style, then again someone graces the source doc style.
>> What is important, none of them is a redundant, that is, they complement each other.
>>
>  
> Patching for Fedora (or for whichever other distro) in upstream 
> Syslinux should only be done when it would affect many other distros in 
> the same way (i.e. relevant as a general / very popular / well known / 
> thoroughly tested / wildly used / proven code).
> 
> What a Fedora package maintainer could do would be to have a patch in 
> Fedora's package, changing the "default" values in the keytab-lilo.pl 
> Perl script itself, according to typical Fedora's paths (e.g. there 
> used to be a "$DEFAULT_PATH", in addition to the "$DEFAULT_MAP" and 
> "$DEFAULT_EXT" values), in such a way that the shorter form of the 
> command line would work under Fedora.
> 
> I would tend to think that it is easier to simply type in the complete 
> relevant paths for each case, instead of having the script attempting 
> to be "too-smart".
> 
> Instead of re-writing the original document from LILO, I decided to 
> write a wiki document that adds (or complements) to the original 
> information. It can be linked to from other sites / forums / irc, and 
> it also includes links to the original (wikified) document. It can also 
> be improved easier than the documentation included in each upstream 
> release.
> 
> Based on the type of questions that are usually asked about Syslinux 
> (not just in the Syslinux mailing list), many (of those) questions have 
> been already answered in some document or in the wiki; yet, the 
> questions are asked anyway.
> 
> I happen to know of at least one distro that actually deletes the 
> keytab-lilo Perl script and its doc from its Syslinux package because 
> "the same" files are included in the LILO package.
> 
> IMHO, the existence of the wiki document is enough in this case (as 
> opposed to editing the original doc). Editing the original document 
> should mean to actually re-write it for Syslinux with relevant and 
> current info.
>  

Can you summarize?