[gPXE] FW: environment variable expansion in 'filename'?

Jarrod Johnson jarrod.b.johnson at gmail.com
Thu May 20 14:40:49 EDT 2010


Would you mind a patch to add the expand_command to autoboot.c?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Miller, Shao
<Shao.Miller at yrdsb.edu.on.ca>wrote:

> Hey again Jarrod,
>
> I'm forwarding this on to the gPXE list.
>
> gPXE actually does support conditionals right now, though they're extremely
> icky.  See "crazy scripting library" thread[1] or "fall-back filename"
> thread[2].  However, there doesn't seem to be much interest, much time, much
> support, much discussion, or some combination thereof for a couple of
> [relatively] recent proposals to enhance gPXE's scripting/CLI system[3].
>
> - Shao Miller
>
> [1] http://etherboot.org/pipermail/gpxe/2010-March/000646.html
> [2] http://etherboot.org/pipermail/gpxe/2010-April/000846.html
> [3] http://etherboot.org/pipermail/gpxe-devel/2010-March/000102.html
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Jarrod Johnson [mailto:jarrod.b.johnson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 14:19
> To: Miller, Shao
> Subject: Re: [gPXE] environment variable expansion in 'filename'?
>
> So, currently, that's how it goes and I used fixed-address declarations so
> looking up the 'best' next-server isn't too hard.  Without fixed-address,
> things start getting tricky based on what I'm trying to do.  While still
> possible for me to externally coordinate what network the booting device
> will land in, it would be much simpler for my purposes to inherit
> 'next-server' from the 'subnet {}' portion of dhcp, but I need to specify
> per-node paths at a host declaration level.  Things get hypothetically
> trickier if netboot with DHCPv6 comes into life following the rule in DHCPv6
> where DUID is constant regardless of interface when I'm dealing with
> multihomed devices.  There I might have a single host declaration that has
> to describe two network relationships, but that's all theoretical.
>
> On a related note, is it horribly objectionable or a bad idea for
> expand_command  from exec.c to be called from boot_next_server_and_filename
> from autoboot.c?  Failing that I'll contemplate an embedded script, but lack
> of conditionals is gPXE scripting could prove to be a touchy thing.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://etherboot.org/pipermail/gpxe/attachments/20100520/a0ffa035/attachment.html 


More information about the gPXE mailing list