Subject: Re: ELF ?
From: Donovan Warren (aramis_@yellowdog-linux.bacil.dyndns.org)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 16:41:31 MDT
On Friday 08 June 2001 01:48, Samuel Rydh wrote:
> >Oddly enough, there doesn't appear to _be_ a strip_nwrom binary installed.
> >This, perhaps, is why they left it out of the instructions ... I just find
> > it hard to comprehend how this makes it out as a paid release with
> > missing parts and installer bugs. Maybe my expectations are too high.
>
> Actually, this is a new feature. It is no longer necessary
> to strip the ROM since (MOL no longer uses with libelf,
> which expected the ELF header att offset 0). This holds
> for 0.9.59 (the version bundled with YDL 2.0).
Why, then, does MOL complain about the rom image not being an ELF, if it is
not necessary for it to be one? As far as I can tell, the instructions for
making MOL work, on the website (which I would assume to be authoritative)
will never work for HFS+ formatted volumes. The documentation is pretty
sparse (to put it mildly) for HFS+ anyway; maybe I've just missed something
on the site. The instructions which came with YDL to make MOL work are fine
so far as they go, but 0.9.59 then doesn't run because of this ELF error.
>
> Moreover, the rsync version can load the ROM directly from the
> HFS/HFS+ partition (there is a new '-boot' flag which
> can be used to tell MOL which disk to startup from).
What rsync version? I see no mention of it on the website, nor do the docs on
the site give any useful information about this. The version of MOL YDL
installs doesn't have any documentation at all, AFAICS.
> BTW: Do not use session save and restore with the rsync version -
> the reimplementation of the block driver does not yet support
> it.
Thanks for the heads up :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> /Samuel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 15:47:08 MDT