[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111026080240.GA3189@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:02:40 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: syslinux
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:44:46AM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> The syslinux.spec is attached. For isolinux we need only the core
> package, syslinux. The full list of generated RPMS is as follows:
>
> syslinux-4.04-owl1.i686.rpm
> syslinux-devel-4.04-owl1.i686.rpm
> syslinux-extlinux-4.04-owl1.i686.rpm
> syslinux-perl-4.04-owl1.i686.rpm
> syslinux-tftpboot-4.04-owl1.i686.rpm
>
> Do we want to package all these capabilities or to wipe them from the
> sources as in nmap?
How large are they?
In Nmap, we exclude from the source tarball stuff that is not even
compilable on Owl (GUI, non-Linux). So it's a different story here.
> Also, Fedora has a patch for GPT support for 4.02, but it doesn't apply
> to 4.04. Do we need it?
We don't need it right away. We'll need it later, but doesn't
up-to-date syslinux support GPT already?
BTW, it was reported to us that LILO just works on GPT, despite of
lacking specific support for it. I don't think that would be the case
for a filesystem-aware bootloader, though.
With my recent fix to the kernel, we have a little bit of room on the
"floppy" again (more than we did before the gcc update, in fact), so
moving to isolinux is less urgent. (I am able to build ISOs again.)
But please proceed to prepare us for this move:
We'll need updates to Owl/build/ such that ISOs will be built with
isolinux instead of LILO.
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
