From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:33:24 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] new package - generate iso with
 isolinux bootloader
In-Reply-To: <20140128172502.171b2f84@skate>
References: <y>	<1376644934-4302-1-git-send-email-jean.sorgemoel@laposte.net>	<5213ECA4.9030405@mind.be>
 <20140128172502.171b2f84@skate>
Message-ID: <52E7E9E4.20400@mind.be>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

On 28/01/14 17:25, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:24:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>
>>    First a generic comment. Is there any reason not to simply replace the
>> iso9660 filesystem? That one is currently using grub as a bootloader, but
>> it doesn't work very well. So I think this patch is very valuable to get
>> the iso9660 filesystem working properly again. But as it is now, it is
>> too complex to be included in buildroot. See my comments below.
>
> What doesn't work with the current iso9660 filesystem support that is
> grub based? I've tested it recently, and it was working. I've even
> pushed a few improvements to it.

  To be honest it has been a couple of years since I tried it, and I 
don't remember exactly. Here are a few issues that I can think of now.

* It doesn't actually build a rootfs, but rather a bootable image.

* grub has issues cross-compiling between x86_64 and i386 - but your 
recent patches may have fixed that.

* Bug#6092 (closed now, but not at the time I posted it).

* The issue that grub was built without iso support (fixed now, but not 
at the time I posted it).

  Possibly iso9660 is working reliably by now.


>>    A second generic comment is about the choice of booting with an
>> initramfs. Why not boot with a (rockridge) iso9660 rootfs? Clearly it
>> puts a bit more strain on the kernel config since iso9660 as well as the
>> bus drivers (sata, usb) have to be linked in, but I think that would be a
>> much nicer solution. This type of image containing the actual rootfs in a
>> different format should really be generated by a post-image script
>> instead of a filesystem target. Can the rest of the list give their opinion?
>
> I don't think that ISO9660 supports symbolic links, ownership,
> permissions, device files and all these Unix filesystem features that
> are typically needed to use a given filesystem type as a Linux root
> filesystem.

  That's what RockRidge is for.


  Regards,
  Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F