From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

HOW do you install Syslinux as a bootloader?

The last step of the instillation guide simply state install a boot loader with a link to available boot loaders.

From the list of available boot loaders I chose Syslinux which brought me here.

This guide simply states install from official distributions? Again HOW?

The link for official distributions just takes me to a lengthy page on what official distributions are.

I still have no idea HOW to install Syslinux as my boot loader for my bran new install of Arch-linux. At this point I will have to abandon the whole thing for failed instructions. Neither apt or aptitude are installed with the distro and again, the instructions do not tell me anything about what my options are or how to go about the task given. Not providing instructions is an epic fail for a set of instructions.

I tried registering on the forums to find the answer but the registration system is broken asking a anti-bot question I can't possibly answer. Some code thing, but I'm no programmer and haven't clue. —This unsigned comment is by Krahazik (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2015‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Fixed the installation link with [1]
For the rest, see the Beginners' guide. -- Alad (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's see if [2] helps. Ady (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps that paragraph is also (better?) suited in Boot loaders. -- Alad (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Location of kernel and initrd files in UEFI systems

The edition [3] seems to be too-strong in its wording (i.e. "must") with no real indication of what is happening or why such path should be used in syslinux.cfg (which is not completely accurate anyway).

The path in syslinux.cfg for files such as vmlinuz-linux depends on where exactly the files are located, in relation to the working directory of syslinux.efi.

For example, if the kernel and initrd files are located in the root of the $esp, and syslinux.efi is located in $esp/EFI/syslinux/, then the paths to be used in $esp/EFI/syslinux/syslinux.cfg would start by ../../ as "mandated" by the aforementioned edition. But if the kernel and initrd files are located in the $esp/EFI/ directory (as another example), then the paths to be used in $esp/EFI/syslinux/syslinux.cfg would start by ../, not by ../../.

Considering that the "UEFI systems" section does not mandate any specific directory for the location of the kernel and initrd files – as of syslinux.efi 6.03, they only need to be somewhere in the $esp partition – I would tend to think that the wording of this edition might need some tweaking, and/or more accurate information should be provided regarding the (recommended) location of the kernel and initrd files for UEFI systems.

IMHO, the aforementioned edition lacks context / accuracy when reading the "UEFI systems" section of this article.

Additionally, the reason for this edition points to [4] but, to a user seeking for instructions / information (i.e. without prior knowledge / understanding), that forum topic does not seem to provide any justification for this "mandatory" change of paths, nor instructions for users to follow, especially considering the lack of context for this edition within the wiki page itself. Ady (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, my editing realy does more harm than good.
When you install this stuff the first time you just follow the description and apply the examples to your installation without paying much attention. So paths in example don't always match your installation (which shouldn't be surprising). But I wanted to warn the reader.
I will remove my edit and add a note to examples section. Thompson 19 March 2016

Comparing to other bootloaders

In the Syslinux page, the topics should be about Syslinux. Comparisons with other bootloaders are to be placed in the Category:Boot_loaders page, where they belong.

I had deleted the unneeded and irrelevant comments about other bootloaders within the Syslinux page, but my edition was reverted. I consider this "revert" (aka "undo") action to be a mistake, together with additional editions referencing other bootloaders in the Syslinux page. Ady (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that it should be minimized, but I do think we should at least link alternatives if a feature is missing. I've updated the page. Thoughts? -- Rdeckard (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In [5], the link to alternative bootloaders is mentioned in a main initial Note of the Syslinux page. The link is also present in the "Related" area. IMO the Note should only refer to things about Syslinux itself.
While the link to Category:Boot_loaders is already present in the "Related" area, I indeed agree that linking to it (again) in some relevant paragraph(s) might be useful for some users. I happen to disagree about linking to it from the "chainloading" subsection (or from the initial main Note, as I mentioned in my previous paragraph).
Users looking for chainloading-while-using-Syslinux can read the relevant info in the relevant subsection of the Syslinux page. Users looking for chainloading-while-using-GRUB2 can read the relevant info in its own page. Users looking for bootloaders-capable-of-chainloading (or whichever other feature) can read the Category:Boot_loaders page, which includes some features of different bootloaders (or a kind of comparison between them).
So, where do I think it would be, both, useful and appropriate to add a link to the "Category:Boot_loaders" page? For example, in some already-existing subsection referring to some relevant limitation or with some relevant less-than-clear warning/error message originated in Syslinux's code, such as; a simple "See (also) Category:Boot_loaders" at the end of such subsection should be enough and adequate (with no "for alternatives", no "for other bootloaders", no "workarounds", no "better options", no "other possibilities", no...; it's intention is clearly implied already by the context in this case).
IMO, other subsections, limitations (or warning/error messages, or "cons") in Syslinux should _not_ be followed be comments about other bootloaders nor links to the Category page. There is no such thing in the wiki pages of other bootloaders, and rightly so. Ady (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. I think removing the link to boot loaders in the note is fine. I don't think the page has any other links to GRUB, etc. -- Rdeckard (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Although ATM there are still links to GRUB, they are consistent, relevant and appropriate. Closing. —This unsigned comment is by Ady (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2016. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!