intrigeri
2014-Jun-13 15:08 UTC
[syslinux] Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
Hi, first, thanks a lot, Ady and Gene, for your prompt and very useful replies! Ady wrote (11 Jun 2014 20:18:43 GMT) :> Although I haven't tested it lately, the Tuxboot tool should be able > to use the version of Syslinux included in your ISO images so to > transfer it to a (USB) drive. Since it works for other Debian-based > distros, it might answer to your needs. GParted/Clonezilla Live also > include scripts for the same purpose, and they are already using > Syslinux 6.03-pre*.Ah, that was just the hint I needed. I didn't know that all what we needed, in our situation, was the syslinux binary. Now, I see that Clonezilla simply ships a syslinux binary (in utils/linux/syslinux), and Tuxboot uses this path. We'll do the same, and will use the same paths for standardization's sake. (Before sending my initial email, I had looked into running syslinux from the SquashFS filesystem that's inside our ISO, but that required a bit of mount -o loop and chroot dance, which requires root privileges and brings security concerns to the table. I'm glad you suggested something way simpler to me.)> Regarding the particular versions you mentioned, IMHO using 6.03-pre1 > would be a waste of time, as there are already (too) many > improvements over it in the current 6.03-pre14.Sure, we're eagerly waiting for a newer version to be uploaded to Debian. Not sure we have time to integrate it in time for Tails 1.1, in case there are packaging changes or files moving around.> PS: [off-topic] > Reading the reports from users testing TAILS in UEFI systems, you > might want to consider adding the 'MENU RESOLUTION 1024 768' > directive to your EFI/tails.cfg as temporary workaround (for example,I'll look into it, thanks! Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
Ady
2014-Jun-13 16:07 UTC
[syslinux] Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
> Hi, > > first, thanks a lot, Ady and Gene, for your prompt and very > useful replies! > > Ady wrote (11 Jun 2014 20:18:43 GMT) : > > Although I haven't tested it lately, the Tuxboot tool should be able > > to use the version of Syslinux included in your ISO images so to > > transfer it to a (USB) drive. Since it works for other Debian-based > > distros, it might answer to your needs. GParted/Clonezilla Live also > > include scripts for the same purpose, and they are already using > > Syslinux 6.03-pre*. > > Ah, that was just the hint I needed. I didn't know that all what we > needed, in our situation, was the syslinux binary. Now, I see that > Clonezilla simply ships a syslinux binary (in utils/linux/syslinux), > and Tuxboot uses this path. We'll do the same, and will use the same > paths for standardization's sake.If I may, I'd like to clarify the above paragraph, just in case some potential reader might misunderstand / misinterpret it. First, the 'util/linux/syslinux' path is not really a requirement. It just happens that ClonezillaLive, GPartedLive and Tuxboot (among others) have developer(s) in-common. Considering that the Syslinux installers (for BIOS systems) use different file names and that the Syslinux version shall be the same for all Syslinux-related files, they could all be located in one directory all together, including the (BIOS) c32 files, the MBR variants... Of course the EFI variants shall be located in a different directory, specially the c32 modules for EFI. Regarding to "all" what is needed, it is not just the binary installer. All Syslinux-related files included in the aforementioned ISO images are originated from the same exact version of Syslinux. If a user would execute the scripts while the c32 files are from a different version than the installer, then the result would possibly have some inconsistency. In a (USB) drive, you might be able to boot but only if no other c32 module is used. Mixing versions is just a call for unexpected behavior, and using "scattered" paths elevates that probability. So, although you could include in the ISO images the same "scattered" paths as GParted/Clonezilla Live, using one (and only one) directory for all Syslinux-related files for BIOS (and another, adequate path for EFI) would be a valid approach too. It depends on how much trouble is for you to maintain your scripts and on how easy the users can update under different circumstances (e.g. using a different distro with a different version of Syslinux so to update TAILS on an external drive, which might also include multiple distributions...). Regards, Ady.
intrigeri
2014-Jun-14 11:18 UTC
[syslinux] Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
Hi, Ady wrote (13 Jun 2014 16:07:33 GMT) :> Considering that the Syslinux > installers (for BIOS systems) use different file names and that the > Syslinux version shall be the same for all Syslinux-related files, > they could all be located in one directory all together, including > the (BIOS) c32 files, the MBR variants...I had got it initially, but it's still useful to clarify for other readers :)> So, although you could include in the ISO images the same "scattered" > paths as GParted/Clonezilla Live, using one (and only one) directory > for all Syslinux-related files for BIOS (and another, adequate path > for EFI) would be a valid approach too. It depends on how much > trouble is for you to maintain your scripts and on how easy the users > can update under different circumstances (e.g. using a different > distro with a different version of Syslinux so to update TAILS on an > external drive, which might also include multiple distributions...).Our installer/upgrader currently only runs from Tails itself, so we have a guarantee that the syslinux binary and the c32 modules come from the very same version of syslinux: they were all dropped into place at ISO build time. Note that we require a drive to be fully dedicated to Tails, as we don't want to encourage users to trust other operating systems not to corrupt Tails that would be installed on the same drive. So, in our case, I believe that "scattered" paths and "everything in a single directory" would work equally well. Now, I think we'll just follow Tuxboot/Clonezilla lead on that one, mainly in the hope that other USB installers running on Windows standardize on these paths, and then none of them have to special-case Tails for this reason only. Thanks again! Cheers, -- intrigeri
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
- Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
- Acceptable version mismatch between syslinux 6.0N's MBR/ldlinux.sys and *.c32?
- Improving TAILS, WAS: Module Versioning
- Improving TAILS, WAS: Module Versioning