Re: [Etherboot-developers] gPXE/Bootix incompatibility

[H. P. A. <hp...@zy...>]

On 03/25/2010 03:57 AM, Alex Zeffertt wrote:
> Michael Brown wrote:
>> On Wednesday 24 Mar 2010 12:02:44 Alex Zeffertt wrote:
>>> Perhaps the Bootix NBP shouldn't be doing this... but we've found that if
>>>  we make PXENV_TFTP_READ_FILE only update the filename in
>>> cached_info[CACHED_INFO_DHCPACK] and leave the filename in
>>> cached_info[CACHED_INFO_BINL] then the boot succeeds.  (See patch below.)
>>>
>>> If anybody is still reading, do you know whether this is an okay way to fix
>>>  the problem, ... or will it break NTLDR?
>>
>> Nice debugging!
>>
>> Unfortunately I have no idea whether or not it will break NTLDR, and NTLDR 
>> compatibility probably has to take higher priority than Bootix compatibility.  
>> If you can verify that your change still allows a successful RIS deployment 
>> (for which you would need Windows Server 2003 R1; I believe RIS was obsoleted 
>> in 2003 R2 and replaced with WDS), then we could fairly safely apply this 
>> change.
>>
>> I have Windows Server 2003 R1 media and licence keys, so could test this for 
>> you, but I won't be able to do so any time soon, sorry.
>>
>> Michael
>>
> 
> You're right, we can't break NTLDR.  Here's an alternative way to fix the 
> problem.  Now, I know this is a terrible hack... but it does guarrantee(*) that 
> non-Bootix NBPs will not be affected.
> 
> Alex
> 

It would seem to me that something is fundamentally bogus if it can only
be detected by recognizing the particular NBP.  Rather, that seems to
indicate that something was mischaracterized in how other BCs act...

	-hpa