[syslinux] Status of syslinux git master

[Didier Spaier]

Hello,

On 7/7/19 11:13 PM, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote:
...
> "Shuffling around" files in current git master would imply that prior
> patches and workarounds that have been ignored by upstream Syslinux
> while embraced by downstream package maintainers would be much harder
> to apply in different distros/packages in the future. Moreover, if at
> some point someone would decide to pick up Syslinux's development,
> proposed patches that are still "awaiting" for some reaction from
> upstream Syslinux would be useless after this massive "shuffling" of
> files. To be clear, there are more-than-just-a-few of those
> previously-ignored proposed patches.
> 
> One additional negative aspect of this massive "shuffling" of files is
> documentation. For some time now, I've been updating documents in the
> wiki, including paths that are mentioned, even in the wikified official
> documents. It would be very inconvenient and confusing, for users and
> package maintainers alike, to have paths being relevant "from 5.00 to
> 6.04-pre1" while other, different paths would be relevant "from
> 6.04-pre4".
> 
> Moving around files in such way also complicates things when trying to
> track down specific changes, especially when searching for bugs that
> were introduced in the code before such shuffling.
> 
> If development of Syslinux had been much more active, someone could
> claim that this massive "shuffling" of files is necessary in order to
> keep the code clean and continue with development of features (and
> solving bugs). But in such hypothetical case, Syslinux would be at a
> "higher" version number by now, and "active and continuous development"
> (together with a "higher" version number) would introduce more "sense"
> in the reasoning for this massive shuffling of files. I claim that we
> should be more realistic, and there is no sign of "active and
> continuous development" in the near future for Syslinux.
> 
> I do have comments regarding the current status of git master (which is
> either FTBFS or the resulting binaries are not working as expected),
> but I'd rather leave them for some future email.
...

As an aside (off topic, but triggered by the quoted message):

I provide at time of writing for the Slint ditribution (Slackware
derivative, polyglot and more accessible to blind and partially sighted
users):
1. installation ISOs like found here:
http://slackware.uk/slint/x86_64/slint-14.2.1/iso/ that rely for booting
on isolinux in DOS aka Legacy mode, GRUB in EFI mode,
2. installation of GRUB to boot the installed system, and possibly other
systems found in the same machine,
3. ability to make USB boot sticks using syslinux/GRUB respectively to
help in case booting the installed system from the device where it is
installed fails.

Now that GRUB 2.04 has been released, I plan to rely on it exclusively
for aforementioned features in next Slint version, in all contexts, i.e.
EFI and Legacy booting.

Preliminary tests didn't raise issues, but is there any caveat doing
that? More generally, are here still unique features provided by
SYSLINUX, PXELINUX, ISOLINUX and EXTLINUX that I would miss using GRUB?

Best regards,

Didier