[syslinux] Recommend verification - starting with version 6.0.4-pre1
gene.cumm at gmail.com
Sun Jul 23 09:16:10 PDT 2017
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:16 AM, <mikezb at softhome.net> wrote:
> Gene Cumm:
>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM, <mikezb at softhome.net> wrote:
>>> Gene Cumm:
>>>> Please use reply all. OP is a non-subscriber.
>>>> Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:26 AM, mikezb (via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com>)
>>>>> I recommend someone verify that tar.gz and tar.xz files ( at
>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/ ) unpack without
>>>>> (I assume use of compression is in hope of saving download bandwidth)
>>>> What do you mean? Is there a particular one that you observe an issue
>>> I wanted to try out a less-well-known Linux distribution ISO, and used a
>>> handy script to partition-and-format a storage device, unpack it, and
>>> it bootable - but the script was set up for syslinux version 6.0.3, and
>>> ISO apparently required version 6.0.4-pre1 instead.
>>> (I don't know whether it would have been compatible)
>>> I tried a more flexible script, but it had trouble unpacking
>>> syslinux-6.04-pre1.tar.xz for application; on inspection of the log, I
>>> incomplete unpacking - at least 1 file (named advconst?) was compressed
>>> I suspect this was an error - the zip file worked.
>>> (It may be the only such occurrence; I haven't checked other files.)
>> No issue in the tarball. Please check your extractor/file system.
>> lrwxrwxrwx hpa/hpa 0 2016-03-02 00:06
>> syslinux-6.04-pre1/libinstaller/advconst.h ->
>> It's a symlink. Some extractors might mess up. Extracting onto a file
>> system that has no concept of a symlink like say FAT will also have issues.
> Considering the ISO was compatible with FAT32, that's disappointing.
> I somehow had the notion syslinux was meant to be compatible with FAT, as in
> "The Syslinux Project covers lightweight bootloaders for MS-DOS FAT
> filesystems (SYSLINUX), …".
> Not the same as in the zip file, thankfully.
> Anyway, thanks!
The boot loader _itself_ is compatible. This is merely a single
header file in the source portion of the archive file and unnecessary
for normal use. If I recall correctly, tar can store symlinks while
zip can not and must duplicate the file to store it.
More information about the Syslinux