On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
{
{ >From: P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{
{ >Thanks again for the suggestion. I should have reported back that I=20
{ >have it running now. I had to upgrade my cdrecord from v1.10-11 to=20
{ >v1.11alpha24. Now everything works great.
{
{
{ Another proof, that the way most Linux ditributors act is wrong:
{
{ They distribute cdrecord-1.10 together with Linux-2.4
{
{ Although they should know that cdrecord -1.10 is sooo old that it cannot
{ know about the Linux-2.4 kernel bugs :-(
But then why do you call it v1.11alpha if it's not "alpha quality" code?
With this naming scheme one could reasonably assume that v1.10 is the
stable version and v1.11alpha is the development/unstable version and
so should not be included in a stable release of a distribution.
Denis
_______________________________________________
Denis Pelletier
�tudiant au doctorat
sciences �conomiques, Universit� de Montr�al
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
