Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-02-03: > "Jim Crilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 02/03/06 07:31:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > So patches to the rescue -- please review the patch below (for > > > > 2.01.01a05). > > > > Note that GPL 2a and 2c apply, so you cannot merge a modified version of > > > > my patch without adding a tag that you goofed my fixes. > > > > > > OK, I did not look at it and I never will! > > > > > > Jörg > > > > This is an excellent example to verify how bad cdrecord developent > > is done..... > > Well, > > cdrecord is done as good as possible.
Untrue. Proof: My patch makes it operate more smoothly on Linux. > Note that if peope send a patch together with personal infringements or > untrue claims, the best I can do is to ignore alltogether. Look who's talking, and what. Personal infringements? If you're sensitive, my apologies, I didn't mean to insult you. > I did spend a lot of time with a fruitful discussion with Matthias. > Then Matthias started this thread.... It now seems like Matthias > does not like to be serious anymore. I am absolutely serious about the patch and about my recent findings after looking at libscg. I just don't want my name tainted with accidents that happen during integration because you don't have a recent Linux installation. The RLIMIT_MEMLOCK was enough of an effort, my first patch would've worked, too, hence the GPL. > I am of course interested to make cdrecord better, but for the price > of spending an ridiculously amount of time ob LKML. Well, if you'd listened and attempted to understand our scanning concerns, you'd probably have had libscg use a unified ATA:/SCSI: namespace in Linux for 1½ years. OK, spilled milk. -- Matthias Andree -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
