> How about the recently introduced weak issue? > On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, "H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux" <syslinux at zytor.com> > wrote: > > > There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people > > really need. Do we know of any current regressions? Otherwise we > > really ought to just push the button... > > > > -hpaHow about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug that has been present since v.5+)? Or how about the feedback I wrote when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years? And the pending patches? [sarcasm mode on] Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic daily release! One new official release version every single day. That way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm sure that would solve all the problems. [sarcasm mode off] I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste my own time with something that won't be even read). I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point, completely useless numbers, won't change the facts.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:35:13AM +0300, Ady wrote:> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Gene Cumm wrote: > > On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people > > > really need. Do we know of any current regressions? Otherwise we > > > really ought to just push the button... > > > > > > > How about the recently introduced weak issue? > > How about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the > gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug > that has been present since v.5+)?I think that 'the recently introduced weak issue' and 'the "keeppxe" patch' are the same. http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2016-June/025216.html> Or how about the feedback I wrote > when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports > XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years? > And the pending patches? > > [sarcasm mode on] > Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic > daily release! One new official release version every single day. That > way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer > updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm > sure that would solve all the problems. > [sarcasm mode off]That is called CI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration ) [serious mode continued]> I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an > updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't > really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste > my own time with something that won't be even read). > > I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point, > completely useless numbers, won't change the facts.The good thing I see in a new version number is "Let's move forward" 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/20160614/67fe4944/attachment.sig>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:35:13AM +0300, Ady wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Gene Cumm wrote: > > > On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people > > > > really need. Do we know of any current regressions? Otherwise we > > > > really ought to just push the button... > > > > > > > > > > How about the recently introduced weak issue? > > > > How about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the > > gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug > > that has been present since v.5+)? > > I think that 'the recently introduced weak issue' and 'the "keeppxe" patch' > are the same. http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2016-June/025216.htmlNo, they are not. Bug #71 is not the same as bug #5.> > > > Or how about the feedback I wrote > > when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports > > XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years? > > And the pending patches? > > > > [sarcasm mode on] > > Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic > > daily release! One new official release version every single day. That > > way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer > > updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm > > sure that would solve all the problems. > > [sarcasm mode off] > > That is called CI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration ) > [serious mode continued] > > > > I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an > > updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't > > really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste > > my own time with something that won't be even read). > > > > I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point, > > completely useless numbers, won't change the facts. > > The good thing I see in a new version number is "Let's move forward"They are unrelated in this case. Moreover, the last few times that a new version was released, the development stalled even more than before. My point is that those requesting a new version release now don't seem to be following the development, nor the existing regressions, nor the pending-for-review patches. Not having the gnu-efi submodule updated and tested is enough reason not to release now; but to know that, people would need to be following the development. I could provide a lot more reasons.> > > Groeten > Geert StappersAt any rate, I expressed my honest opinion, trying to be objective and realistic. Regards, Ady.
On 14/06/2016 04:35, Ady via Syslinux wrote:> >> How about the recently introduced weak issue? >> On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, "H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux" <syslinux at zytor.com> >> wrote: >> >>> There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people >>> really need. Do we know of any current regressions? Otherwise we >>> really ought to just push the button... >>> >>> -hpa > > How about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the > gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug > that has been present since v.5+)? Or how about the feedback I wrote > when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports > XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years? > And the pending patches? > > [sarcasm mode on] > Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic > daily release! One new official release version every single day. That > way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer > updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm > sure that would solve all the problems. > [sarcasm mode off] > > I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an > updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't > really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste > my own time with something that won't be even read). > > I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point, > completely useless numbers, won't change the facts.I agree with what Ady said. Let me add the perspective of an end user as distribution maintainer, also interested in requirements management as a basis for systems engineering. When looking for a booting software I have mostly two use cases in mind: _ boot the installation media, whateveer it be, _ boot the installed system (among others). I have already posted what I will use in Slint but reminds it here: _ for the installation media, syslinux for BIOS, elilo for UEFI _ for the installed system, lilo for BIOS, elilo for UEFI (either or not registered by the firmware's boot manager). Maybe in some cases grub will be needed for UEFI. As far as I know there is no "one tool suffice for all uses cases" for booting but maybe grub (but at the price of an increasing complexity and it fails with some hardware in cases where elilo doesn't). Slackware uses grub for booting the installation media. For UEFI firmware I have also tried elilo, the EFI stub (works also with an embedded command line, but I don't know how to provided several boot options, or allow editing the command line before booting, and no help screen), goofiboot (it has similar limitations) and syslinux 6.03. What could make me adopt syslinux 6.xx would be that it provides features that I need and lack in 4.xx, and be as reliable as 4.xx (and of course I would inform users that they can't boot from a DVD in case of UEFI). Apart from those mentioned in this mailing list I don't know if the issues mentioned in this page: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Syslinux have been worked out, or will be. That syslinux be tagged 6.04 won't help me, I am afraid.>From the website and this mailing list it is difficult for me to graspwhere the project leaders are heading to -- And there is no Cheshire Cat in sight. I am sorry for the negative tone of this post, that reflects my pessimism about the evolution of the syslinux project. Please believe that I am nevertheless still grateful for the great work that Peter and others have done and a happy user of syslinux 4.07. Best regards, Didier