[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bad symlinks with CD-RW's



On Tue, 04 Jul 2000, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> On Jul 03 2000, erik wrote:
> > mkisofs -f -J -T -r -l -V EFILinux_2.2 -P EFI-Systems -b boot/rescue.bin \
> > -c boot.catalog -o /disks/EFI-image/EFI-1.0-i386.raw /disks/EFI;
> 
> 	I normally use only the -r -J options when I'm creating my
> 	disks and everything works fine. I'm using the mkisofs that
> 	comes with potato.

 hmmm, well I guess I _could_  cut down on the options somewhat - but I
would like them to be as compatible with other OS's as possible, hence
e.g. the -T ... I plan to give them to other people to use.


> 	I guess that the problem is the -f option (I just read its
> 	description now), but I've never used it before so I don't
> 	know better.

 -as far as I can tell at this point this one does something like a hard
link to the directory in the resulting image... very confusing option
 
> 	Also, all my bootable disks work just fine with the -b and -c
> 	options.

 -so one would think... I'm getting some very strange results here I know.

> 	BTW, you didn't mention it in your first e-mail, but you
> 	actually test the CD using the loopback feature of the kernel,
> 	right? If not, then it is an excellent money saver.

  ...yeah, although I did fry a couple first just for kicks... 8^/.

> > This one actually makes an unbootable CD that has an empty
> > binary-i386 directory.  Removing the -r makes every file executable,
> > including the empty links which don't go anywhere.
> > 
> > any clues?
> 
> 	Let us know what happens.

 Actually, I discovered last night that if I removed *one* of the links -
specifically "binary-all -> binary-i386" I could get it to work. This is
still a mystery to me as I have symbolic links to directories both above
and below this level...  but the  "debian -> . " in the root of the disk
still eludes me and by now I'm a bit burnt on the proccess so I think I'll
just leave it for a bit now.

 Thanks for the thoughts,
erik



Reply to: