Now, I am considering replacing Isolinux 5.10 by 6.0.3 as it seems stable.
What are your thoughts there?
Selecting a specific version of ISOLINUX to include could be less straightforward than we (users and/or developers) would like it to be.
First of all, if a user extracts the content of an ISO image (that already uses ISOLINUX) with the purpose of editing it and then building a new ISO image, in most cases the general recommendation would be to use the same exact binaries (isolinux.bin, et al) that were already included within the original ISO; that is, unless the bootloader (ISOLINUX) itself or related files (e.g. vesamenu.c32) are having some problem (or when they are part of some tests with different versions).
Mixing different versions of boot files has been known to be a problem, not only for ISOLINUX. So, for most common use cases, the boot files to be included within the makeiso.zip should _not_ be recommended over those already included within original ISO images, unless there is a specific purpose for doing so.
Now, if the isolinux.bin file to be included in the zip is aimed to be used "alone" (e.g. no need for ISOLINUX's boot menu within the ISO image; no need of c32 modules other than the core one), then the "simplest" version of isolinux.bin would be 4.07.
*ISOLINUX 4.07:
_Pros:
__ Compatible with (i.e. supports) _most_ of the features being used in current (Linux) ISO images.
__ It doesn't need ldlinux.c32.
__ Correctly supports lss16 background boot images.
_Cons:
__ It is not the most common version of ISOLINUX "in the wild"; mixing it with c32 modules of other versions should be avoided, especially regarding chain.c32.
*ISOLINUX 5.xx-6.02:
There is no "good-enough" reason for a common user to use any of these ISOLINUX versions.
*ISOLINUX 6.03:
_Pros:
__ In theory, compatible with many currently-supported Linux ISO images (e.g. boot features, c32 modules, packages). In practice, Linux distributions have been patching the Syslinux-related packages, including ISOLINUX, with upstream commits, so the original upstream 6.03 is not exactly %100 the same as what the Linux distros are releasing in their ISO images. Please keep reading :).
_Cons:
__ Hardware support has been less successful than ISOLINUX 3.xx/4.xx.
__ Requires ldlinux.c32, originated from the same exact build.
*ISOLINUX 6.04-pre1:
_Pros:
__ Many improvements over 6.03, including better hardware support (see the changelog wiki page).
__ Current Syslinux-related packages of popular Linux distros are closer to 6.04-pre1 than to the original 6.03.
_Cons:
__ Requires ldlinux.c32, originated from the same exact build.
__ For users that would care about "final, gold, stable official upstream release", there is no 6.04 final stable official upstream release yet.
*ISOLINUX binary package from Debian "experimental" repository:
_Pros:
__ It is the most updated binary publicly released by any trustworthy organization.
__ At the time I am writing this, it includes _every-and-all_ commits/patches from upstream Syslinux.
__ The matching isohybrid MBR/tool includes patches (i.e. fixes) from upstream that were introduced just a few months ago.
__ Most binary files (including matching c32 modules) can be downloaded (and used) by anyone, even those using Windows.
_Cons:
__ Same as 6.04-pre1.
__ In case a matching SYSLINUX command line installer is needed, there is no matching "syslinux.exe" available at this time, because Debian currently does not include it in any package.
There are other ISOLINUX versions worthy of mentioning, for a variety of reasons, but I still want to keep the focus on MakeIso, so I'll leave it there (unless Erwan thinks it would be useful to expand the aforementioned, here in this forum topic).
About MakeIso latest version, the download link provided in the first post is always valid and pointing to latest release (hosted on my domain).
My signature also contains links to most of my releases.
Unfortunately, that's not what I am experiencing. When I clicked on the "Download" (green) button, I get a "mkiso.zip" (not "makeiso.zip") file, still containing version 1.0.0.0, not the latest one.