Hi, scsijon wrote: > Try, http://dl.t2-project.org/binary/unstable/9.0-trunk/
Let's have a look. t2-9.0-r45574-minimal-i586_cd1.iso boots only from CD, DVD, or BD medium via BIOS or EFI BIOS Emulation. It does not boot by SYSLINUX/ISOLINUX image file isolinux.bin but rather by an image file named /boot/grub/stage2_eltorito . Its content has the text "GNU GRUB 0.97-os.8". So it is from GRUB Legacy, not from the well maintained current GNU GRUB 2. I find no traces in the web that a file named ldlinux.c32 belongs to GRUB or GRUB Legacy. So with both GRUBs it is not to expect that ldlinux.c32 would have any job to do. t2-9.0-r45574-minimal-x86-64_cd1.iso has the same boot opportunity from optical media via boot image /boot/grub/stage2_eltorito . Well, the decision for GRUB is not too bad. But one should consider to migrate to GRUB 2. Its program grub-mkrescue builds a bootable ISO, depending on the configured processor architectures and firmwares. The resulting ISO for the full x86 firmware spectrum boots via BIOS and EFI from optical media (e.g. CD) and from HDD (e.g. USB stick). Most Linux distros use ISOLINUX for BIOS and GRUB 2 for EFI, because SYSLINUX EFI software does not operate CD-ROM outside the EFI System Partition. Only recent Knoppix 8 uses SYSLINUX for EFI by a 15 MB System partition with a complete small Linux in it. Purely GRUB 2 based ISOs are quite rare. Only small distros use it for now. But one has to say that GRUB 2 has several developers, whereas SYSLINUX is quite orphaned upstreams. The reason to stay with ISOLINUX for BIOS is mainly due to the ISO makers' conservativism. Nevertheless, ISOLINUX booting from USB stick suffered since 2009 from a bug which prevented booting on BIOSes which do not announce to support LBA addressing on hard disks. So the quality benefit of such conservatism is well questionable. ========================================================================== Maybe off topic: Is it normal to get from one mail to [email protected] two notifications from foreign mail providers that the mail was not delivered to some unrelated mail addresses ? From: Mail Delivery System <[email protected]> ... host mx2.mail.hostpoint.ch [217.26.49.139]: 550 SPF-check failed: and From: Mail Delivery System <[email protected]> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) - SPF ... Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.x.0 - Message bounced by administrator (delivery attempts: 0) www.openspf.net says about the first rejection: mxin013.mail.hostpoint.ch rejected a message that claimed an envelope sender address of [email protected]. mxin013.mail.hostpoint.ch received a message from mx.exactcode.de (144.76.154.42) that claimed an envelope sender address of [email protected]. However, the domain gmx.net has declared using SPF that it does not send mail through mx.exactcode.de (144.76.154.42). That is why the message was rejected. I understand that the mailing list tells those mail servers that the resent mail was from me, whereas my mail provider GMX tells SPF that it does not use the mailing list server to send mails from my address. This effect is exotic to me. No other mailing list causes it. Is it that the subscribers here have so odd providers or is it that mx.exactcode.de is not fully suitable for mails that come from GMX ? (Explanation for non-germans: GMX is big in germany. Not exotic at all.) Have a nice day :) Thomas ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [email protected] with a subject of: unsubscribe t2
