On 02/03/06 08:10:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "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.
The fact that you seem to sling mud at everyone that doesn't agree with you makes that seem questionable. > Note that if peope send a patch together with personal infringements or > untrue claims, the best I can do is to ignore alltogether. > > 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. It's hard to have a serious discussion with you because you just keep parotting the same things and pointing fingers over and over. > I am of course interested to make cdrecord better, but for the price > of spending an ridiculously amount of time ob LKML. > > Jörg > And you never did answer my question about why cdrecord is the only app on any OS to use devicename:scsibus,target,lun to specify the target device. Every other tool out there, e.g. mount, fsck, tar, etc, all use the device name exported by the OS, e.g. /dev/c0t0s0d0, /dev/hda1, /dev/nst0, etc, so why is it necessary for cdrecord to be different? Jim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
