Syslinux - Oct 2013 - Remove gpxe or replace with ipxe?

The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to
integrate with iPXE themselves.

What do people think?

	-hpa

> The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
> replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to
> integrate with iPXE themselves.
> 
> What do people think?
My vote is replace with iPXE. I've manually replaced gPXE with iPXE for
years, works like charm.

I suggest updating the Makefile to use undionly.kkkpxe because of the change in
iPXE described below.

https://git.ipxe.org/ipxe.git/commit/9a93db3f0947484e30e753bbd61a10b17336e20e

Cheers,
Daniel

+1 to use ipxe


On 9 October 2013 08:56, Lindgren Daniel <daniel.lindgren at
tullverket.se>wrote:
> > The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
> > replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how
to
> > integrate with iPXE themselves.
> >
> > What do people think?
>
> My vote is replace with iPXE. I've manually replaced gPXE with iPXE for
> years, works like charm.
>
> I suggest updating the Makefile to use undionly.kkkpxe because of the
> change in iPXE described below.
>
>
>
https://git.ipxe.org/ipxe.git/commit/9a93db3f0947484e30e753bbd61a10b17336e20e
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
> Please do not send private replies to mailing list traffic.
>
>

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> writes:
> The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
> replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to
> integrate with iPXE themselves.
>
> What do people think?
Do you mean a recipe for creating [gi]pxelinux.0 or for deploying iPXE
and using pxelinux on top of that?  Is there any technical difference?
If not, the latter would lead to a cleaner situation, I guess.
On the other hand, I don't use PXE too much these days.
-- 
Regards,
Feri.

For me the motivation for gpxelinux.0 was the HTTP support. If this would
work reliably in newer versions then I could happily live without a
iPXE-based pxelinux.


On 9 October 2013 13:36, Ferenc Wagner <wferi at niif.hu> wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> writes:
>
> > The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
> > replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how
to
> > integrate with iPXE themselves.
> >
> > What do people think?
>
> Do you mean a recipe for creating [gi]pxelinux.0 or for deploying iPXE
> and using pxelinux on top of that?  Is there any technical difference?
> If not, the latter would lead to a cleaner situation, I guess.
> On the other hand, I don't use PXE too much these days.
> --
> Regards,
> Feri.
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
> Please do not send private replies to mailing list traffic.
>
>

> The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
> replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to
> integrate with iPXE themselves.
> 
> What do people think?
> 
> 	-hpa
 
Objectively, which pros and cons would be for each case?

Is there any "better compatibility" if it is included? Or, any
"worse

interaction" (or any "worse whatever") if a user just uses the 
respective original official binaries from each independent project?

Is there a case where a simple user would try to use respective 
independent archives and it would be more difficult than the 
alternative, when getting ipxe included in Syslinux archives?

Are there any situations where Syslinux developers would need / want 
to hack ipxe differently from what the original project does?

TIA,
Ady.