On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:> > I wonder why the already built-in binaries are not enough / adequate. > Or, in other words, I am curious about why do you need to build your > own binary files, instead of using the files that are already there > in the official archives in kernel.org.I don't believe it can be used as is: bash# file syslinux syslinux: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, BuildID[sha1]=0xe82a9430ce7456cfea7bcc877fa694740296c2a8, stripped bash# ./syslinux bash: ./syslinux: No such file or directory I have a minimal 64-bit system, where 32-bit libraries are not present. Second, I'd rather use git instead of kernel.org due to the following statement published earlier in one of the threads:> H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> 5:30 AM (15 hours ago) > to ??, syslinux > > Please work on the current git, rather than 6.02... 6.02 has a number of > known problems.If you could explain a solution for both, I would gladly use binary provided. Regards, Alexey
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I wonder why the already built-in binaries are not enough / adequate. > > Or, in other words, I am curious about why do you need to build your > > own binary files, instead of using the files that are already there > > in the official archives in kernel.org. > > I don't believe it can be used as is: > bash# file syslinux > syslinux: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically > linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, > BuildID[sha1]=0xe82a9430ce7456cfea7bcc877fa694740296c2a8, stripped > > bash# ./syslinux > bash: ./syslinux: No such file or directory > > I have a minimal 64-bit system, where 32-bit libraries are not present. > > Second, I'd rather use git instead of kernel.org due to the following statement > published earlier in one of the threads: > > H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> 5:30 AM (15 hours ago) > > to , syslinux > > > > Please work on the current git, rather than 6.02... 6.02 has a number of > > known problems. > > If you could explain a solution for both, I would gladly use binary provided. > > Regards, > Alexey >I don't see how that explains why you can't use the pre-compiled binaries. From your own emails, you don't seem to be looking to (re)build a Syslinux package, but rather trying to use the extlinux installer (to install EXTLINUX on a specific device). Currently, official git master *is* 6.03-pre11. If you were to expand an official 6.03-pre11 archive (anew, from kernel.org), then go to "bios/extlinux/" inside the expanded directory tree and then execute in there "./extlinux" with the necessary extlinux options (arguments), I would tend to believe you would get the desired result (extlinux installed on a mounted fs). Regards, Ady.
On May 13, 2014 4:04 PM, "Ady" <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:> > > I wonder why the already built-in binaries are not enough / adequate.> > I don't believe it can be used as is: > > bash# file syslinux > > syslinux: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),dynamically> > linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, > > BuildID[sha1]=0xe82a9430ce7456cfea7bcc877fa694740296c2a8, stripped > > > > bash# ./syslinux > > bash: ./syslinux: No such file or directory > > > > I have a minimal 64-bit system, where 32-bit libraries are not present.> I don't see how that explains why you can't use the pre-compiled > binaries. From your own emails, you don't seem to be looking to > (re)build a Syslinux package, but rather trying to use the extlinux > installer (to install EXTLINUX on a specific device).This alone does. 32b libraries or a 64b binary. --Gene