[syslinux] Interaction with Windows bootloader

Ady Ady ady-sf at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 5 12:15:05 PST 2019


> syslinux[64].exe -i -f c: bootsecfile.bss
> 
> This should have been the form for your desire as specifying the
> filename should have told it to create the BSS instead of writing it
> to the VBR.  Being the "fixed" HDD instead of a removable drive like a
> USB stick, "-f" is necessary.
 

Hmm, instead? Could this syntax be some kind of unintended oversight?


Are you saying that a command such as:

 syslinux.exe -i a: bootsecfile.bss

is not supposed to change the VBR of a:, whereas a command such as:

 syslinux.exe -i a:

performs the change of the VBR?


I see several inconsistencies here.

In theory, at least either --install or --Update are supposed to be 
required for the VBR to be modified by the installer. But for this 
case, since the VBR is not supposed to be modified, the --install 
option should not be required (for consistency with its 
meaning/intention).

Therefore, for consistency:

_ A command such as:

 syslinux.exe -i a: bootsecfile.bss

should had meant performing both actions: writing to the VBR of a: (and 
copying the ldlinux.{sys,c32} files to the root of a:) _and_ writing 
(creating) the bss file; _not_ one action _instead_ of the other.

_ A command such as:

 syslinux.exe a: bootsecfile.bss

should had meant writing (creating) the bss file, and copying 
ldlinux.{sys,c32} to the root of a:, but without writing to the VBR of 
a:.


An additional matter, also regarding consistency, is that for the exe 
and com installers, the usage of --install is not yet congruent with 
the equivalent usage for the Linux-based installers (i.e. with and 
without "-i" has currently the same result for the case presented in 
this email thread).

I haven't tested the Linux-based installers with the bootsecfile 
option; for the exe and com installers, this syntax (that currently 
seems to mean "instead") is confusing and inconsistent/incongruous with 
the expected usage/goal of --install.

Independently of the matter of the "-f" option, isn't the above a more 
consistent / logical behavior (for the Windows- and DOS-based 
installers, at least, if not for all of them)?

Regards,
Ady.




More information about the Syslinux mailing list