From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:25:02 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] new package - generate iso with isolinux bootloader In-Reply-To: <5213ECA4.9030405@mind.be> References: <1376644934-4302-1-git-send-email-jean.sorgemoel@laposte.net> <5213ECA4.9030405@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140128172502.171b2f84@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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. > 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. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com