[syslinux] Merging isolinux.bin and ldlinux.bin for Rufus

[Shao Miller]

On 3/8/2016 14:26, Pete Batard via Syslinux wrote:
> [...]
> But in essence, yes, that's pretty much it.

So then some thoughts:

 1. Did you mean a truly "merged" file, where the very same file could
    be used for ISOLINUX and for disk-based Syslinux?  Or did you mean
    "tacked on," where ldlinux.bin would be appended to isolinux.bin so
    that you could later split them apart?
 2. What about people who are too stupid to anticipate their ISOs being
    converted to PXELINUX?  Do we tack on PXELINUX stuff to
    isolinux.bin?  There have been _plenty_ of times when I wanted a
    simple way to go from ISO to PXE.  Unfortunately, few tools that
    I've found cover that scenario as well as Rufus covers the ISO ->
    disk scenario.
 3. In your experience, are people picky about which .c32 modules they
    include, or do they just dump the whole lot in?  I ask because
    perhaps we could sneak ldlinux.bin into a .c32 module, which would
    [thankfully] leave isolinux.bin alone.  Such a module could be a
    trivial xtrafile.c32 program that simply lists the names of its
    embedded files, for example.
 4. If is was tremendously easy to find a disk-based Syslinux to work
    with .c32s you find in an ISO, would you still advocate merging
    isolinux.bin and ldlinux.bin, or is that the only reason to care
    about having an ldlinux.bin?


> [...]
>
> So, while I appreciate the honest opinion, I think we may want to try 
> to consider this from the standpoint of what people might legitimately 
> _choose_ to do, without resorting to calling them stupid for doing so.

I'm sorry that it wasn't obvious that "stupid" was used for brevity's 
sake.  No opinion about people actually being stupid was intended.  The 
e-mail was simply asking for confirmation about a rough understanding.

- Shao Miller

P. S. I hope you've observed another Rufus-specific e-mail regarding 
Rufus and Syslinux version concerns. :)