7.x too much hassle
fonzman last edited by
No upgrade path from 6.x is very sad
Tried a new install of 7.1 anyway.
- a lot of my bios files which did fine on 6.1 are now invalid - because 7.1 looks for CASE SENSITIVE FILENAMES! Why would you do that on a FAT file system, which has no real case sensitivity? After renaming them, most work. Some are still invalid (PCEngine for example)
- Kodi 18.9 does not connect to my samba share. I don't know why, it works fine with Kodi 17 on RecalBox 6.1...
- My IR remote does not work in Kodi any more (again). Going through the whole IR setup process is too much work for me now ...
so, in the end, too much work for no apparent gain. I'll pass this release. Thanks anyway for the effort.
@fonzman Sorry to hear that ... but lots of things have changed between 6.x and 7.x, that's why its a major release. After 7.0 upgrade will be easier.
Now filesystem is exfat, and Case sensitive filenames is the right rule on recent filesystem
For kodi, the reason is samba 1 is unsecure and banned by default.
So you can stay at 6.x if you don't want do give time.
fonzman last edited by
Thanks @ian57 for the clarification.
Kodi and Samba 1.0 could be the issue. I can't find out what smb-version my NAS (a LaCie 5big network 2) has on board. Though I don't have any issues connecting Win10, Mac Catalina or Ubuntu Focal to it, which seems strange is smb 1.0 is such a big problem.
exFat is actually good news, concerning bigger files. But even on exfat it is not possible to have multiple files with the same name but different uppercase/lowercase letters - they would still be treated as the same file! (unlike on linux filesystems for example).
So giving errors for not finding files according to different case sentitivity is simply a dumb design decision.
Perhaps I will go through all the pain again and try to set up recalbox 7.1 on my pi. Lockdown gives me plenty of time anyway. Just looking for the good (no, I don't say "positive" ) things.
villeneuve last edited by villeneuve
Why was exFAT chosen? It's a horrible filesystem, prone to issues and corruption, just like FAT32! What's the reason to not use something robust like ext4?
So what is the correct filename writing of the BIOS files? All in small letters?
SMB 1.0 is insecure, yes, but how does that matter in a multimedia environment? And just not allowing Recalbox connecting to SMB 1.0 actually doesn't stop the samba server from offering SMB 1.0 so the actual security inside a LAN isn't improved at all. I know people having their videos and stuff on very old & dumb SMB-only NAS boxes which still work perfectly fine for the purpose but are made obsolete by software enforcements like that.
RustyMG last edited by RustyMG
@villeneuve Hi, the Recalbox team do not decide upon the name of the required bios files. As v7 of Recalbox uses the latest "bump" of the emulators, its whatever files the emulators look for that have to be present, not what the Recalbox team want.
If new or alternative cores are used in Recalbox, they may require new / different / updated bios files - and this has always been the case with emulation.
If the emulator being updated is really old, chances are, new bios files will be required. If its a bug fix / minor update of the core, chances are the bios files will stay "as is" etc.
Re using exfat, this is, for me, fantastic news. The Pi's I setup for friends n family, in the past, Id need to network transfer over 100gig of files to the microSD card sitting in the Pi, powered up. This took in some cases literally a day.
Now, there is a shared partition on the microSD card that's readable on a PC. I simply drag n drop the files from my "master" HD of files over to the roms folder on the microSD, job done. A god send.
villeneuve last edited by
First of all thanks for your reply
I know that Recalbox doesn't decide BIOS filenames, but I just wanted to know what the correct naming scheme. So this question still stands.
Your usage pattern of the microSD benefitting from exFAT is ok though you'd get the exact same comfort using NTFS which for 99% of people world wide would also be perfectly fine in terms of compatibility with the added benefit of having a robust filesystem. The best would be if the user could decide during the install process which filesystem he wants to use. Recalbox installer could still propose exFAT as default. Btw exFAT is a devil send
RustyMG last edited by
@villeneuve Hi, re exFAT, vs NTFS, on removable media exFAT doesn't support file ownership and permissions thankfully, as this on NTFS has caused me no end of problems in the past, with files being locked, or I can't do anything with them as I'm not the file's "owner". This is a non issue on exFAT.
Also, I stand to be corrected, but I'm sure that files on exFAT take up FAR more space on the media due to the cluster size used in the format (if you have an exFAT device with hundreds of tiny files, right click and check out the properties, and see their size compared to the actual space taken up on the storage due to his very reason - exFAT is very inefficient).
Plus, isn't NTFS still proprietary to Microsoft ?
RustyMG last edited by
Not able to edit above. I meant to clarify better, ie that the only real downside to exFAT is the space small files take up.
villeneuve last edited by
NTFS file ownership on a Linux-based os like Recalbox should be no issue at all. You could even copy the files to the SD card ignoring NTFS file properties.
NTFS is proprietary and does even cost license fees AFAIK when used in a commercial product, but for Recalbox that doesn't apply.
BRDX last edited by
Do we have any answer as to why the bios checking is effectively broken by unnecessary case-sensitivity? So long as the md5 is right, RecalBox should be renaming the files on its own -- at least when using the web interface. It's clunky as-is.
@BRDX Your question is already explained in the comments above, any other answer would be what has already been said: It is not the Recalbox that requires the BIOS, it is the emulators.
It is not recommended at this time to use the web interface to check the BIOS, since version 7.0 there is an internal BIOS check, accessible through the Emulationstation Main Menu, the developers are working to improve the web interface.
RecalBox should be renaming the files on its own
It would take a lot of development work, and this would require an unnecessary effort from the system, is much more consistent for users to have common sense and rename files correctly. I repeat: the BIOS is required by the emulators, in the name, extension, and MD5 that the emulators require, because the emulators simulate the consoles, and the consoles are produced with their native BIOS, in the predefined name, extension and MD5, so , there is not much that can be done.
It is inconsistent for the small team of Recalbox developers to spend their time and effort on a feature that does not improve system performance, and requires the user only once to add the correct BIOS, in the correct name, extension and MD5.
Something like that has already been proposed by another user, and the conclusion is the same: