> On 01/06/2015 02:28 PM, Robert Yang wrote: > > > > > > On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add the extX > >>> support > >>> to mtools/syslinux: > >>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the libext2fs. > >> > >> Renaming it is not a problem. > > > > Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ? > > > > Maybe userspace/syslinux? Ady is right, that we need to update the > documentation, but the same thing happened when unix/syslinux was > renamed linux/syslinux... > > -hpa > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com > Unsubscribe or set options at: > http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux >The "mtools/syslinux" location is not just a matter of updating documentation. Phrases such as "the mtools installer" and "the nomtools installer" are frequently used. Past changes regarding the installers have been already a source of problems, specially those changes that were not backward-compatible. Even documenting such changes in a clear manner for final users has not been as simple as it should. Additionally, every time there is a name or location change inside the official Syslinux distribution archives, a lot of (support) issues come up. So-called "tutorials" are suddenly outdated and users come back complaining that something is not working, or broke, or there is a bug... The changes in the directory tree structure that were introduced with version 6.00 (bios/efi32/efi64) are just "one" example (ask users, and package maintainers who are still receiving bug reports just because of this). Before the release of version 6.00, there were already so many changes that perhaps also changing the name / location (and dependencies) of the "mtools installer for SYSLINUX" might have been "just one of several" changes. Now version 6.03 has been finally adopted by popular Linux distributions, including Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu (which are all still receiving new "bug reports" because of the directory tree changes, among others, compared to their prior package version, 4.05). So, changing the name, location and/or dependencies of what has been known as "the mtools installer" would indeed be a problem for users, with repercussions on time to be spent for supporting them. And such problems (and resources to be spent) would be very tangible/present for at least the following 2-4 years, considering that Debian 8 (with Syslinux 6.03) is only in it's pregnancy stages. Even if a new installer would replace what has been known as "the mtools" installer, I would tend to think that at least one (or even two) versions should be released with both, so users could actually test the new installer and report bugs and problems. In the meantime, documentation could be gradually updated, and eventually/optionally the old installer would be considered deprecated and then deleted in a future version. This is not just "some naming change while maintaining the same features and dependencies". And even if it was just that, how many users' scripts (and packages) are we willing to screw (yet again), right now (after 6.03 has been finally adopted)? I am not against changes. I hope for improvements. As final user (who BTW is still stuck at version 4.07 because of bugs in 6.xx), I am just raising a point: let's try to introduce improvements while maintaining as much backward compatibility as possible. Perhaps the mtools/syslinux installer should remain, and a new installer could be introduced too? It might help with some transition period, updating documents, packages, dependencies, bug reports... TIA, Ady.
Robert Yang
2015-Jan-08 01:23 UTC
[syslinux] [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device
On 01/08/2015 09:19 AM, Ady wrote:> >> On 01/06/2015 02:28 PM, Robert Yang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add the extX >>>>> support >>>>> to mtools/syslinux: >>>>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the libext2fs. >>>> >>>> Renaming it is not a problem. >>> >>> Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ? >>> >> >> Maybe userspace/syslinux? Ady is right, that we need to update the >> documentation, but the same thing happened when unix/syslinux was >> renamed linux/syslinux... >> >> -hpa >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Syslinux mailing list >> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com >> Unsubscribe or set options at: >> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux >> > > The "mtools/syslinux" location is not just a matter of updating > documentation. Phrases such as "the mtools installer" and "the nomtools > installer" are frequently used. > > Past changes regarding the installers have been already a source of > problems, specially those changes that were not backward-compatible. > Even documenting such changes in a clear manner for final users has not > been as simple as it should. > > Additionally, every time there is a name or location change inside the > official Syslinux distribution archives, a lot of (support) issues come > up. So-called "tutorials" are suddenly outdated and users come back > complaining that something is not working, or broke, or there is a > bug... The changes in the directory tree structure that were introduced > with version 6.00 (bios/efi32/efi64) are just "one" example (ask users, > and package maintainers who are still receiving bug reports just > because of this). > > Before the release of version 6.00, there were already so many changes > that perhaps also changing the name / location (and dependencies) of > the "mtools installer for SYSLINUX" might have been "just one of > several" changes. Now version 6.03 has been finally adopted by popular > Linux distributions, including Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu (which are all > still receiving new "bug reports" because of the directory tree > changes, among others, compared to their prior package version, 4.05). > > So, changing the name, location and/or dependencies of what has been > known as "the mtools installer" would indeed be a problem for users, > with repercussions on time to be spent for supporting them. And such > problems (and resources to be spent) would be very tangible/present for > at least the following 2-4 years, considering that Debian 8 (with > Syslinux 6.03) is only in it's pregnancy stages. > > Even if a new installer would replace what has been known as "the > mtools" installer, I would tend to think that at least one (or even > two) versions should be released with both, so users could actually > test the new installer and report bugs and problems. In the meantime, > documentation could be gradually updated, and eventually/optionally the > old installer would be considered deprecated and then deleted in a > future version. > > This is not just "some naming change while maintaining the same > features and dependencies". And even if it was just that, how many > users' scripts (and packages) are we willing to screw (yet again), > right now (after 6.03 has been finally adopted)? > > I am not against changes. I hope for improvements. As final user (who > BTW is still stuck at version 4.07 because of bugs in 6.xx), I am just > raising a point: let's try to introduce improvements while maintaining > as much backward compatibility as possible. > > Perhaps the mtools/syslinux installer should remain, and a new > installer could be introduced too? It might help with some transition > period, updating documents, packages, dependencies, bug reports...Sounds good to me, e2fs/syslinux is more easier to maintain, I'd like to add an e2fs/syslinux if possible. // Robert> > TIA, > Ady. > >
Geert Stappers
2015-Jan-08 05:29 UTC
[syslinux] [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:23:41AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:> On 01/08/2015 09:19 AM, Ady wrote: > > <snip/> > > > >This is not just "some naming change while maintaining the same > >features and dependencies". And even if it was just that, how many > >users' scripts (and packages) are we willing to screw (yet again), > >right now (after 6.03 has been finally adopted)? > > > >I am not against changes. I hope for improvements. As final user (who > >BTW is still stuck at version 4.07 because of bugs in 6.xx), I am just > >raising a point: let's try to introduce improvements while maintaining > >as much backward compatibility as possible. > > > >Perhaps the mtools/syslinux installer should remain, and a new > >installer could be introduced too? It might help with some transition > >period, updating documents, packages, dependencies, bug reports... > > Sounds good to me, e2fs/syslinux is more easier to maintain, I'd like to > add an e2fs/syslinux if possible.FWIW: the syslinux commits mailing list had activity earlier this week :-) Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven ------------- volgend deel ------------ Een niet-tekst bijlage is gescrubt... Naam: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Grootte: 836 bytes Omschrijving: Digital signature URL : <http://www.zytor.com/pipermail/syslinux/attachments/20150108/88fa87c4/attachment.sig>
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device
- [PATCH 0/8] extlinux: support unmounted ext2/3/4 filesystem
- [PATCH 0/8] extlinux: support unmounted ext2/3/4 filesystem
- [PATCH 0/8] extlinux: support unmounted ext2/3/4 filesystem
- [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device