[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