On 20.04.2018 09:36, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 20.04.2018 08:53, Viktor VM Mihajlovski wrote: >> On 19.04.2018 18:55, Thomas Huth wrote: [...] >> Well, if we don't add another identifier, and I feel reluctant about it >> as well for the reasons you wrote, we may stick with 0x1f and consider >> the additional capabilities as being optional (for special needs only). > > I tend to stay with 0x1f, since booting binaries is still the "primary" > interface (the first check for the "default" or "# " magic keywords is > not 100% reliable, since the config file could also start with another > command, and the probing of pxelinux.cfg/* files is only tried afterwards). > Good. It would be important though to define and document the best way to configure a pxelinux setup: empty bootfile name, bootfile empty (or not existent) or a special file format for the bootfile content (like 'PXE0' in EBCDIC). The former two carry the danger of accidentally enabling the pxe-style boot process. > Thomas >
-- Regards, Viktor Mihajlovski
