Syslinux - Jan 2015 - [PATCH 0/9] linux/syslinux: support ext2/3/4 device

On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add the extX
support
>> to mtools/syslinux:
>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the libext2fs.
>
> Renaming it is not a problem.
Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ?
>
>> 2) The mtools/syslinux isn't fully functioned, for example, as the
code
>> shows:
>>      if (opt.sectors || opt.heads || opt.reset_adv || opt.set_once
>>          || (opt.update_only > 0) || opt.menu_save) {
>>          fprintf(stderr,
>>                  "At least one specified option not yet
implemented"
>>                  " for this installer.\n");
>>          exit(1);
>>
>>
>> How about add an e2fs/syslinux, please ?
>
> You'd have to do the same work for that one...
Sorry, I don't quite understand this, did you mean do libext2fs'
syslinux
as mtools' syslinux ? I've made libext2fs' syslinux fully
functioned.

// Robert
>
> 	-hpa
>
>
>
>

On 01/06/2015 02:28 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add the
extX
>>> support
>>> to mtools/syslinux:
>>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the libext2fs.
>>
>> Renaming it is not a problem.
> 
> Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ?
> 
Maybe userspace/syslinux?  Ady is right, that we need to update the
documentation, but the same thing happened when unix/syslinux was
renamed linux/syslinux...

	-hpa

> On 01/06/2015 02:28 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 01/07/2015 03:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2015 07:20 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> After more investigations, I'm a little worried about add
the extX
> >>> support
> >>> to mtools/syslinux:
> >>> 1) Its name is mtools/syslinux, can't express the
libext2fs.
> >>
> >> Renaming it is not a problem.
> > 
> > Do you have any suggestion about the new name, please ?
> > 
> 
> Maybe userspace/syslinux?  Ady is right, that we need to update the
> documentation, but the same thing happened when unix/syslinux was
> renamed linux/syslinux...
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
> 
The "mtools/syslinux" location is not just a matter of updating 
documentation. Phrases such as "the mtools installer" and "the
nomtools
installer" are frequently used.

Past changes regarding the installers have been already a source of 
problems, specially those changes that were not backward-compatible. 
Even documenting such changes in a clear manner for final users has not 
been as simple as it should.

Additionally, every time there is a name or location change inside the 
official Syslinux distribution archives, a lot of (support) issues come 
up. So-called "tutorials" are suddenly outdated and users come back 
complaining that something is not working, or broke, or there is a 
bug... The changes in the directory tree structure that were introduced 
with version 6.00 (bios/efi32/efi64) are just "one" example (ask
users,
and package maintainers who are still receiving bug reports just 
because of this).

Before the release of version 6.00, there were already so many changes 
that perhaps also changing the name / location (and dependencies) of 
the "mtools installer for SYSLINUX" might have been "just one of 
several" changes. Now version 6.03 has been finally adopted by popular 
Linux distributions, including Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu (which are all 
still receiving new "bug reports" because of the directory tree 
changes, among others, compared to their prior package version, 4.05).

So, changing the name, location and/or dependencies of what has been 
known as "the mtools installer" would indeed be a problem for users, 
with repercussions on time to be spent for supporting them. And such 
problems (and resources to be spent) would be very tangible/present for 
at least the following 2-4 years, considering that Debian 8 (with 
Syslinux 6.03) is only in it's pregnancy stages.

Even if a new installer would replace what has been known as "the 
mtools" installer, I would tend to think that at least one (or even 
two) versions should be released with both, so users could actually 
test the new installer and report bugs and problems. In the meantime, 
documentation could be gradually updated, and eventually/optionally the 
old installer would be considered deprecated and then deleted in a 
future version.

This is not just "some naming change while maintaining the same 
features and dependencies". And even if it was just that, how many 
users' scripts (and packages) are we willing to screw (yet again), 
right now (after 6.03 has been finally adopted)?

I am not against changes. I hope for improvements. As final user (who 
BTW is still stuck at version 4.07 because of bugs in 6.xx), I am just 
raising a point: let's try to introduce improvements while maintaining 
as much backward compatibility as possible.

Perhaps the mtools/syslinux installer should remain, and a new 
installer could be introduced too? It might help with some transition 
period, updating documents, packages, dependencies, bug reports...

TIA,
Ady.