Reusing DVD+RW disks with cdrecord
in [General Linux]
|
From: John Hasler on 10 Jul 2010 17:36 Joerg Schilling writes: > What you write here is called slander and this is a crime in my > country Germany. And then later writes: > Well Debian destroys many programs - not only cdrtools. I'll just let these two statements stand by themselves... -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 10 Jul 2010 17:58 On 2010-07-10, John Hasler wrote: > Joerg Schilling writes: >> What you write here is called slander and this is a crime in my >> country Germany. > > And then later writes: >> Well Debian destroys many programs - not only cdrtools. > > I'll just let these two statements stand by themselves... It is true that Debian does strange things to some programs. For example, it removes socket programming from bash. It's not alone in futzing up programs: Mandrive removes the 'time' keyword from bash. (I always compile my copy of bash from source.) -- Chris F.A. Johnson, <http://cfajohnson.com> Author: Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
From: Keith Keller on 10 Jul 2010 19:35 On 2010-07-10, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > In article <i1amuo$9t1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote: >>On Saturday, July 10th, 2010 at 20:55:00h +0000, Joerg Schilling declared: >> >>> Well Debian destroys many programs - not only cdrtools. >> >>In your opinion, which distribution is least destructive >>of programs? > > Good question. FreeBSD and Solaris do not destroy software. Neither FreeBSD nor Solaris are linux (as you likely already know). Looking at my Slackware 13.0 (actually -current just before 13 was released), it's not easy to tell whether it's modified or not. The man page mentions a mailing list at debian.org, but calls it the "old" mailing list. Otherwise Joerg's name and contact information is all over the man page (for cdrecord, anyway). But given that Slackware has a long history of making as few modifications to others' source code as possible (usually none) there's a decent chance it's unmodified. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Baho Utot on 11 Jul 2010 09:00 Joerg Schilling wrote: > In article <rb1lf7-4hj.ln1(a)lapu-lapu.bildanet.com>, > Baho Utot <baho-utot(a)invalid.com> wrote: > >>>> Schilling has stated that he has permission from all the writers to do >>>> so. >>> >>> He needs to show that he has these permissions; including all relevant >>> mail in an appropriate place in the source would be a good way of doing >>> this. >>> >>> (I'm not aware of him having done so.) >>> >>> [snip] >> >>He hasn't. Only made claims with no way to verify. >>When asked to dual license GPL and CDDL there is no response. > > What you write here is called slander and this is a crime in my country > Germany. > > Athough it is not my duty to defend against the pointless claims from > Debian (note that they did never give any legally valid prove for their > claims), I did explain why there is no legal problem in the original > cdrtools and I do even prove this with quotes from many serious and well > repected lawyers. > > I recommend you to stop spreading your incorrect claims. What I am commenting on is _YOUR_ actions when you invaded the Arch linux arch-general forum trying to get them to change from wodim to cdrtools. Do a little research search on google and see what has transpired. http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10487.html http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10440.html http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10438.html http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10439.html Show me just where my claims are incorrect and/or slanderous sir. _YOU_ were the one arguing with the Arch linux developers, as you can see in the exchange or words from you and Arch linux developers I said nothing other than this: http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10630.html http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10646.html http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general%40archlinux.org/msg10635.html
From: unruh on 11 Jul 2010 12:15
On 2010-07-10, Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: > I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written... > >> In article <5132F9918C%news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid>, >> Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: >>>> What do you think growisofs depends on? >>> dvd+rw-tools (which contains growisofs) depends on libc6, libgcc1, >>> libstdc++6 and... > >> I need to correct you here: growisofs depends on mkisofs and not on >> genisoimage. > > http://packages.debian.org/lenny/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. > > http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. That may be, but then they have altered growisofs From the man page for growisofs (eg first item on google search) http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/linuxcommand.org/man_pages/growisofs1.html "growisofs - combined mkisofs frontend/DVD recording program." Or from Wikipedia "The package itself requires another program which is used to create ISO 9660 images on the fly. This is provided by mkisofs (from the cdrtools package) or genisoimage (from the cdrkit package)." So apparently Debian changed the dependencies of growisofs to use genisoimage. And from http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/ the official web page of growisofs " Q. Do I still need cdrtools? A. Yes. It should be explicitly noted that growisofs is a front-end to mkisofs, i.e. invokes mkisofs to perform the actual ISO9660 file system layout. Secondly, the DVD burners available on the market can burn even CD-R[W] media and cdrecord is the tool for this job. " Do you need more evidence? >> Guess why the author recommends not to use genisoimage? It is because there >> are many bugs in genisoimage that hit you in special when you prepare >> images for DVDs or BluRay media. > > Whether or not that's true, I've not been affected by them. Wow. What a way of recommending software for the general public. "It works for me". If a piece of software has serious bugs that will affect some, even if not you, it becomes a matter of moral responsibility for you to investigate before recommending. But then who cares about moral responsibility:-) > |