* Ariel <[email protected]> [Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:20:08PM -0500]: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Michael Prokop wrote:
>> I just uploaded ddrescue 1.23, but I'm considering to drop ddrescue in the >> long run, see argumentation by Antonio in >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=252198#27 > Yes, you should drop dd_rescue. >> I do not intend to include or package dd_rhelp, as even upstream >> considers it deprecated: >> | For some times, dd_rhelp was the only tool (AFAIK) that did this >> | type of job, but since a few years, it is not true anymore : Antonio >> | Diaz did write a ideal replacement for my tool : GNU 'ddrescue'. >> | [...] >> | Nevertheless, I really encourage you to use this replacement tool if >> | it works for you (and it should be the case). >> | [...] >> | dd_rhelp was meant as a quick hack to implement what dd_rescue >> | didn't do, and what couldn't be done at that time (AFAIK). >> -- http://www.kalysto.org/utilities/dd_rhelp/index.en.html >> I'm therefore (finally) closing this bugreport with wontfix. > You misunderstood what he said. > If you use dd_rescue then you need dd_rhelp, because it's not very useful > without it. > What he said was to drop dd_rescue altogether and switch to ddrescue > (such name confusion!). Jepp, actually that's what I meant ("it" := "ddrescue") - sorry, I should have been more clear in my wording. regards, -mika-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
