search for: c32s

...sneak ldlinux.bin into a .c32 module, which would [thankfully] leave isolinux.bin alone. Such a module could be a trivial xtrafile.c32 program that simply lists the names of its embedded files, for example. 4. If is was tremendously easy to find a disk-based Syslinux to work with .c32s you find in an ISO, would you still advocate merging isolinux.bin and ldlinux.bin, or is that the only reason to care about having an ldlinux.bin? > [...] > > So, while I appreciate the honest opinion, I think we may want to try > to consider this from the standpoint of what...

With the BIOS architecture, I was used to boot WinPE from PXELINUX. I used 4 different ways: 1- Calling windows' native PXE loader directly from the config file with a 'kernel' line. 2- Calling windows' native PXE loader with pxechn.c32. 3- Loading an ISO with memdisk 4- iPXE project's wimboot, which relies on memdisk Methods 1 and 2 are slow because loading the bulk of the

On 3/8/2016 07:23, Pete Batard via Syslinux wrote: > [...] the merging of ldlinux.sys and isolinux.bin, which I would very > much like to rally people on this list into seeing as beneficial. [...] My understanding is that isolinux.bin and ldlinux.bin are pretty much twins[1]. If I understand correctly, you'd like the latter to be tacked onto the former because people are too stupid

A proposal for changing the LDLINUX.SYS layout and flow: The current situation ("old style"): ldlinux.bin's physical layout: - VBR - 512 bytes of padding (never lands in memory) - ldlinux.sys, which is: - Sect1 code (494 bytes, leaving enough room for at least one extent, as planned) - Extent pointer patch space (1920 bytes) - The rest of the code