On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Tobias Powalowski
<tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux.
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/

That patch is indeed fine; this issue seems to be due to GCC 4.7.

I tried several prereleases of syslinux 4.06 in a VM and narrowed it
down the following commit which makes it work again:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=boot/syslinux/syslinux.git;a=commitdiff;h=b6be466

I have attached the above patch and respective PKGBUILD changes to the
bug report [1]. I have also uploaded a prebuilt x86_64 package [2] for
anyone wanting to give it a quick test.

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31065
[2] http://dev.archlinux.org/~foutrelis/syslinux-4.05-6-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
>>>>> Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>>>>>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/
>>>>>>> Sorry folks, didn't want to break something.
>>>>>>> I don't have the time now to look at it.
>>>>>> Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we
>>>>>> figure out what's broken.
>>>>> The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux.
>>>>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
>>> headers.
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
>>
>> Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a
>> doubt it does.
>>
>> Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done,
>> however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
>>
>
> Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
>
>> Myra
>>
>
>
> --
> IonuÈ›
>
Ionut:

Some old habits are hard to break. Some of us "old foggys" are just to
set in some of our ways. What can I say.

I don't mean to be inflammatory here, but what's the difference? I've
always figured it was my computer, my system, set up my way, and it's
not hurting any one else. I guess I'll just keep my comments, good or
bad, to my self.

Sorry for the noise.

Myra


--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

Am 08.08.2012 20:40, schrieb Dave Reisner:
> Hrmm, works for me. Semi-related note, why are we forcibly updating
> syslinux to the MBR on package update?

syslinux does not change the MBR on update. It only updates
/boot/syslinux/ldlinux.sys and /boot/syslinux/*.c32.

Am 09.08.2012 03:40, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Tobias Powalowski
> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux.
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
>
> That patch is indeed fine; this issue seems to be due to GCC 4.7.
>
> I tried several prereleases of syslinux 4.06 in a VM and narrowed it
> down the following commit which makes it work again:
>

Thanks for tracking this down.

On Thursday 09 August 2012 04:40:53 Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> I have attached the above patch and respective PKGBUILD changes to the
> bug report [1]. I have also uploaded a prebuilt x86_64 package [2] for
> anyone wanting to give it a quick test.

Thanks Evangelos, with rel -6 syslinux works again.

--
Andrea

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 01:55 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 2012 6:04 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/08/12 05:29, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
>>>>> Am 08.08.2012 21:25, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>>>>>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It was just a rebuild, with an added optdepend :/
>>>>>>> Sorry folks, didn't want to break something.
>>>>>>> I don't have the time now to look at it.
>>>>>> Seems like a patch was added: avoid-using-ext2_fs.patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took the liberty to remove the package from [testing] until we
>>>>>> figure out what's broken.
>>>>> The patch is from fedora, to be able to build syslinux.
>>>>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/tree/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is needed as the ext2 fs stuff has been removed from the kernel
>>> headers.
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable.
>>
>> Incidentally it also causes ext2 /boot to be unbootable, without a
>> doubt it does.
>>
>> Dave's install scripts work great easiest install I've ever done,
>> however it won't boot off of ext2 with syslinux.
>>
>
> Why do you want ext2 on /boot? All bootloaders support ext3/4 this days.
>
>> Myra
>>
>
>
> --
> IonuÈ›
>

In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a
journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the
filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some
space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot
times or disk usage.

to see journal size:
device=/dev/sda7; debugfs -R "stat <$(tune2fs -l $device | awk
'/Journal.inode/ {print $3}')>" $device |& awk '/Size: / {print $6}' |
head -1; unset device

John

Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
> In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a
> journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the
> filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some
> space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot
> times or disk usage.

Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is
superior in every aspect.

On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:

In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a
journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the
filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some
space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot
times or disk usage.

Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is
superior in every aspect.




Ext2

Ext2 stands for second extended file system.
It was introduced in 1993. Developed by Rémy Card.
This was developed to overcome the limitation of the original ext file
system.

Ext2 does not have journaling feature.
On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to
do the over head of journaling.

Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB
Overall ext2 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB

Have a look at entry 5.

On 08/09/12 at 05:27pm, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 09.08.2012 17:12, schrieb Jonathan:
> > In the past I have seen ext2 saves time during boot vs ext3.Having a
> > journal is no use since the files are rarely changed and the
> > filesystem is mostly opened read only. The journal takes up some
> > space. These may matter to you if you are trying to optimize boot
> > times or disk usage.
>
> Then use ext4 without a journal. ext2 is out of date and ext4 is
> superior in every aspect.
>
>
Is it safe to change an existing /boot from ext2 to ext4?

Manolo


--

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Then use ext4 without a journal.

[snip]

> On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do
> the over head of journaling.

Same holds for ext4 without journaling...