search for: 6.04

... > nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \ > -DHEXDATE="0x56dc3c62" \ > -Di386 \ > -I/tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ \ > -l ldlinux.lsr -o ldlinux.o -MP -MD ./.ldlinux.o.d /tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ldlinux.asm > nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \ > -DHEXDATE="0x56dc3c62" \ > -Di386 \ >

On 05.03.2016 14:43, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: > After so much time and improvements, I'm glad to see and publicize a > pre-release, 6.04-pre1 in > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/Testing/6.04/ > > Personally, I've already been working testing the pre-release as-is > and my tests have been positive so far. I appreciate feedback like > that

After so much time and improvements, I'm glad to see and publicize a pre-release, 6.04-pre1 in https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/Testing/6.04/ Personally, I've already been working testing the pre-release as-is and my tests have been positive so far. I appreciate feedback like that from Gabriele Balducci and testing "make bios installer". Yes, there are a

On 06.03.2016 18:23, poma wrote: > On 06.03.2016 16:47, poma wrote: >> ... >>> nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \ >>> -DHEXDATE="0x56dc3c62" \ >>> -Di386 \ >>> -I/tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ \ >>> -l ldlinux.lsr -o ldlinux.o -MP -MD ./.ldlinux.o.d /tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ldlinux.asm >>>

On 06.03.2016 16:47, poma wrote: > ... >> nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \ >> -DHEXDATE="0x56dc3c62" \ >> -Di386 \ >> -I/tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ \ >> -l ldlinux.lsr -o ldlinux.o -MP -MD ./.ldlinux.o.d /tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ldlinux.asm >> nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \

On 07.03.2016 06:45, poma wrote: > On 06.03.2016 18:23, poma wrote: >> On 06.03.2016 16:47, poma wrote: >>> ... >>>> nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="''" \ >>>> -DHEXDATE="0x56dc3c62" \ >>>> -Di386 \ >>>> -I/tmp/syslinux-6.04-pre1/core/ \ >>>> -l ldlinux.lsr -o ldlinux.o -MP -MD

hello everybody, apologies if I'm missing something here Just tried to build 6.04-pre1 test version with: make bios installer and found some problems all (seemingly) related to inaccurate paths in various Makefiles. I enclose a complete patch at the end of this email, which details the problems I found and how they got fixed for me. As an example, this is the first error I got:

On 6/6/19 8:16 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> the PXELINUX log line is >> printed (PXELINUX 6.04 lwIP 6.04-pre3 Copyright (C) 1994-2015 H. Peter >> Anvin et al), > > (snip) > > FWIW, the official binaries from 6.04-pre2 and 6.04-pre3 are not good > for troubleshooting. > > Is the same behavior present when testing with other versions? I would

hi i'm about to upgrade systems. yesterday i got https://www.zytor.com/pub/syslinux/Testing/6.04/syslinux-6.04-pre3.tar.xz in order to upgrade 6.04-pre1 version. i first was upgrading a usb-disk which was booting smootly with a simple configuration. i changed the EFI installation in /EFI/BOOT: efi64/efi/syslinux.efi (UEFI bootloader for EFI X64 (x86_64) firmware) ?

I have a project G4L that has used syslinux for many years. I've upgraded the syslinux from the kernel.org builds over the years up to 6.03 and just copied the newer files, and it has worked. Saw that the new build machine I setup with Fedora 30 had the version 6.04 files. I tried the same process, and then booting the iso comes up with message that it can not load ldlinux.c32, which is

Hi, We have been using isolinux 3.75 for a while now, to support pxelinux and UEFI we were going to update to 6.03, but seeing 6.04 has but fixes, decided to go with 6.04-pre3. First, is that about read for a "make official' ? Second, I did have to modify gnu-efi/inc/efilinks.h for the build to complete (had to remove the (intptr_t) which doesn't belong in EFI/EDK). So I've

Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> We're using a CentOS 6 server running its native (ISC) dhcpd (v4.1.1) >> and tftpd (v 0.49). I've installed syslinux.efi and ldlinux.e64 from the >> syslinux-6.04-pre2 distro alongside the existing pxelinux.0 > > > Please avoid the official binaries from Syslinux 6.04-pre2 and > 6.04-pre3. Additionally, the current git

Hey, I am running a custom-built router (based on a PCengines apu2c4 board, see https://github.com/rtr7/router7 for details) on which I am using PXE boot for recovery purposes, i.e. reverting to an older version of the software/configuration. In this scenario, my workstation acts as the DHCP, TFTP and HTTP server, and my router PXE boots into a recovery program. I have noticed a couple of times

Do note that not everyone is running a Debian based system, so "the current Debian Testing binary packages" are worthless to us. On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:42:45AM +0000, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > Any response would be welcome :-) > > > As usual, builds/versions should not be mixed, at least within the same > platform (bios/ia32/x64). > > Currently,

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:29 PM Ady Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > _ target/EFI/BOOT/SYSLINUX.CFG > > > > I don't think that exists? (see list below) > > > In our "first test" (simple boot prompt), we created > "target/EFI/BOOT/SYSLINUX.CFG". In our "second test" we _added_ >

Package: src:xen Version: 4.14.1+11-gb0b734a8b3-1 Severity: critical Justification: causes serious data loss X-Debbugs-Cc: debianbts at virtualzone.hu Dear Maintainer, after a clean install of bullseye/testing the xen dmesg shows the following message: (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: 0000:01:00.1 d0 addr fffffffdf8000000 flags 0x8 I this is the sata device: 01:00.1 SATA controller: Advanced Micro

> >> Let me double check what the status of 6.04-pre1 is. Maybe this patch > >> is not necessary at all! > > OK, I have verified beyond doubt that 6.04-pre1 (prebuilt from > kernel.org) indeed does fix the issue on the affected systems. > > Again, sorry for the churn! > > Best Regards, > - Chris OK, so, from the user's point of view, the

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

> Thank you all. > > It looks like -mno-red-zone flag is already in master branch since > commit 7d70885d, but it seems it is applied to all EFI builds. Finally we are on the same page. > > IIUC, the problem only affects efi64 builds. Have you actually tested efi32 (ia32) builds? > > So here's the modification of my patch to only apply -mno-red-zone >

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> writes: > I would like to do a short cycle for 6.04, because 64-bit support for > ext4 has come up as a very high priority. Therefore I do not want to > stuff too many things into the 6.04 release but hold them for 6.05. hpa, if 64-bit support for ext4 is mostly ready, you may want to release 6.04 in less than ten days, so that