From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:00:48 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] new package - generate iso with
 isolinux bootloader
In-Reply-To: <20140128223929.3101c67a@skate>
References: <y>	<1376644934-4302-1-git-send-email-jean.sorgemoel@laposte.net>	<5213ECA4.9030405@mind.be>	<20140128172502.171b2f84@skate>	<52E7E9E4.20400@mind.be>
 <20140128223929.3101c67a@skate>
Message-ID: <52E8A720.1010801@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 22:39, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
[snip]

  The conclusion of the snipped text was that my comments from August are 
no longer valid.

>>>>     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.
>
> Aaah, interesting, I didn't know that. So it would probably make a lot
> of sense to improve the ISO9660 support to:
>
>   * Generate just an ISO9660 root filesystem image by default
>
>   * Optionally, make it bootable using either Grub or isolinux
>
>   * Optionally, replace the ISO9660 root filesystem by an initramfs

  The third one fits better in the genimages approach IMHO. The second 
one as well - except that that is not possible, once the iso image is 
created you can't make it bootable anymore. So yes, I think that would 
really improve the iso9660 support.

  However, I would also be happy with a patch that simply adds an option 
to use isolinux instead of grub for the current iso9660 infrastructure.

  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