Syslinux - Apr 2014 - Bootloader data in /boot vs package systems (and atomic updates)

On Apr 24, 2014 3:19 AM, "Ferenc Wagner" <wferi at niif.hu>
wrote:
>
> Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> writes:
> > However, syslinux relies on loadable modules in /boot.  At present in
> > Fedora at least, the RPM package updates these, and it has a %post to
> > ensure that when a newer version of extlinux is installed, we update
> > both the boot modules and the MBR.
> I don't think vanilla extlinux (or generally, Syslinux) has anything to
> do with this.
syslinux.spec.in here:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/boot/syslinux/syslinux.git/tree/syslinux.spec.in

--Gene

Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2014 3:19 AM, "Ferenc Wagner" <wferi at niif.hu>
wrote:
>>
>> Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> writes:
>>
>>> However, syslinux relies on loadable modules in /boot.  At present
in
>>> Fedora at least, the RPM package updates these, and it has a %post
to
>>> ensure that when a newer version of extlinux is installed, we
update
>>> both the boot modules and the MBR.
>>
>> I don't think vanilla extlinux (or generally, Syslinux) has
anything to
>> do with this.
>
> syslinux.spec.in here:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/boot/syslinux/syslinux.git/tree/syslinux.spec.in
Ah, a file I've never cared about.  I wonder if it's still usable with
the firmware branch merged.  Now I can see that even the (undocumented)
'make install' command copies modules into /boot/extlinux.  Is this the
spec file used by Fedora?  I don't know their ways, but using any of
these does not sound like a good idea from the system administrator's
point of view.  I'd rather avoid fiddling with the boot loader at
package install time.
-- 
Regards,
Feri.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Ferenc Wagner <wferi at niif.hu>
wrote:
> 
> Ah, a file I've never cared about.  I wonder if it's still usable
with
> the firmware branch merged.  Now I can see that even the 
> (undocumented)
> 'make install' command copies modules into /boot/extlinux.  Is this
> the
> spec file used by Fedora? 
The current Fedora spec file appears to be forked from that file, yes.
>  I don't know their ways, but using any of
> these does not sound like a good idea from the system administrator's
> point of view.  I'd rather avoid fiddling with the boot loader at
> package install time.
I agree.