From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:39:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] new package - generate iso with isolinux bootloader In-Reply-To: <52E7E9E4.20400@mind.be> References: <1376644934-4302-1-git-send-email-jean.sorgemoel@laposte.net> <5213ECA4.9030405@mind.be> <20140128172502.171b2f84@skate> <52E7E9E4.20400@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140128223929.3101c67a@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 Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:33:24 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > 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. Well, yes, that's true, but it was since the beginning the idea of this iso9660 support, and the additional 'isolinux' filesystem being proposed is exactly the same: a bootable image, except that it uses a different bootloader. > * grub has issues cross-compiling between x86_64 and i386 - but your > recent patches may have fixed that. Yes, they fixed that. > * Bug#6092 (closed now, but not at the time I posted it). Yes, I've closed it, because it works for me. > * The issue that grub was built without iso support (fixed now, but not > at the time I posted it). Yes, it is fixed. > Possibly iso9660 is working reliably by now. It works for me, at least, and was also reported to work by Thierry Bultel, IIRC. > >> 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 Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com