similar to: isolinux needing mkisofs

H, Ady wrote: > A_ The default checksum included in the tested isolinux.bin (offset 20, > 4-bytes-long) is the "correct" one (as oppose to the current situation, > since version 4.00). That's good news. > F_ In the tested isolinux.bin file, there are two additional bytes that > I found to be changed/affected by some ISO-building tools (e.g. > mkisofs), at

ldlinux and extlinux are both using CurrentDir variable name. Rename CurDir to make it consistent with those. - Sebastian Index: syslinux-3.71-pre7/core/isolinux.asm =================================================================== --- syslinux-3.71-pre7.orig/core/isolinux.asm 2008-07-13 19:52:27.000000000 +0200 +++ syslinux-3.71-pre7/core/isolinux.asm 2008-07-13 19:53:11.000000000 +0200 @@

Hi, Ady wrote: > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > issue and deserves credit for it: > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0 instead of 64) > at a time when: > 1)

> Ady wrote: > > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > > issue and deserves credit for it: > > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0 instead of 64) >

> Hi, > > i think i found a suspect in lzo/prepcore.c and it would indeed be a > wrong range of checksumming (speculative congratulations to Ady). Thank you Thomas for your replies and for looking into this issue. My part on the initial investigation that triggered this email thread is relatively small. Others deserve much more credit. I was/am providing not just my own report,

Since my last e-mail, I've done some more exploring on the code. I've discovered that all variants currently use at least 3 64 kiB segments. I was surprised to see that ISOLINUX does not implement any cache segment yet SYSLINUX and EXTLINUX, the disk-based variants do. Are there any ideas on why the faster disk-based variants have cache? Is it as simple as no one has attempted to

Hi, i think i found a suspect in lzo/prepcore.c and it would indeed be a wrong range of checksumming (speculative congratulations to Ady). Looking at http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/blob/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7:/lzo/prepcore.c it seems that this change in line 374 could yield correct checksums: unsigned int ptr; - for (ptr = 64; ptr < offset; ptr += 4) +

This patch introduces extra functionality to chain.c, mainly with reference to BPB adjustments, but not only that. It expects 3 small patches I sent earlier (they are included for easy reference, patches 1-3/4). The changes introduced are: 1) file and boot sector use separate options to control load address and jump address (if applicable). Options are as described below: *

Hey guys, I''m working on the start of incorperating wxSocket into a library that can be included with the Core, and a part of this, is to create a wxThread class, which will basically just be a barebone copy over of Ruby''s own Thread class. (This should also help when we get Ruby 2.0, which hopefully will have Native Threads, as we should still be able to get the base