>From: Denis Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>{ >have it running now. I had to upgrade my cdrecord from v1.10-11 to=3D20
>{ >v1.11alpha24. Now everything works great.
>{=20
>{=20
>{ Another proof, that the way most Linux ditributors act is wrong:
>{=20
>{ =09They distribute cdrecord-1.10 together with Linux-2.4
>{=20
>{ 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?=20
>With this naming scheme one could reasonably assume that v1.10 is the=20
>stable version and v1.11alpha is the development/unstable version and=20
>so should not be included in a stable release of a distribution.
But cannot Linux-2.4 really called a development kernel?
I believe that any cdrecord release is more "stable" than current Linux
kernels that brought even massive VM changes _after_ the official
release has been brought out.
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
