Hi, Vladimir Serbinenko: > I've tested xorriso version : 0.5.5 Version timestamp : > 2010.04.22.221241 and it worked fine.
So my Sector Count unit of 512 bytes is ok until other info emerges. (The Fedora wiki gave me doubts.) I am busily refactoring the xorriso level of boot options. This will finally impose another round of regression tests. I'll give you a note when i am done with mine. > > Please take care in grub-mkrescue to express > > your desired sorting by giving -b before > > --efi-boot. > It's already so. So i can join the behavior of mkisofs and genisoimage that the sequence of -b and -eltorito-alt-boot defines the sequence of boot image entries in the boot catalog. --efi-boot FILE will be documented as being virtually enclosed in -eltorito-alt-boot options. I.e. -b ... boot.options \ --efi-boot FILE \ ... will be the same as -b ... boot.options \ -eltorito-alt-boot \ --efi-boot FILE \ -eltorito-alt-boot \ ... No boot option like -boot-info-table will have a chance to be attributed to --efi-boot. > > "The section header has an identification string. > It looks like ISOs I had under the hand with multiple boot images just > zero-fill this field. I have implemented setting of ID String and Selection Criteria in libisofs and in the own command interface of xorriso. So if we ever need it ... :) > > I will have to ponder about implementing > > option -e . > which probably just is "set platform-id to 0xef" I wrote to the author of that wiki article. No answer yet. Googling brought no insight either. Any Fedora users here ? What does mkisofs -help say ? Have a nice day :) Thomas _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
