ac_ml at backslash.co.uk
Tue May 15 22:54:27 PDT 2001
> On Tue May 15, 2001 at 09:20:52PM +0100, the boisterous
> andrew sprott <andru at btinternet.com>
> wrote to me:
> > prior to my previous message alfs locks after the message
> > uncompresin linux, bootin the kernal
> If I remind right, this is not the problem of the linux kernel. This is a
> problem of syslinux (bootloader). I think syslinux was done without the -s
> From the syslinux docs:
> The -s option, if given, will install a "safe, slow and stupid" version of
> SYSLINUX. This version may work on some very buggy BIOSes on which SYSLINUX
> would otherwise fail. If you find a machine on which the -s option is required
> to make it boot reliably, please send as much info about your machine as you
> can, and include the failure mode.
> So give us more info about your system.
Are you sure? Although I know very little about syslinux, it seems to me like it
has passed the bootloader part of the process and this is a problem with the
kernel. The "Uncompressing linux, booting the kernel..." message is from the
kernel iirc, therefore I doubt it is to do with the bootloader.
I tend to agree with Dean and think this is an issue with compiling on a
Just to note, if I remember correctly, the kernel boot process up to that
message is all written in assembly, and therefore wouldnt be affected by
compiling for a different processor. After that, the kernel boot proper, is
written in C, and will be affected. Does anyone care to comment on this theory?
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss