On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 13:54 +1200, Roger Searle wrote:
> I should have googled in the first place before trying to see what's 
> going on with the permissions, and now that I've found the command can 
> see that I get better info this way too.   I saw that the permissions on 
> /media/cdrecorder (the mount point?) is everyone has rwx.  And on the 
> device is only root had rw, the group and others had nothing.  So using 
> chmod I gave group and others rw permission.  Yet still the device 
> appears to be dead...
> 
> SuSEbox:/home/roger # ls -l /media/
> total 12
> drwxr-xr-x   5 root root 4096 2005-05-30 06:29 .
> drwxr-xr-x  24 root root 4096 2005-06-05 08:27 ..
> drwxrwxrwx   1 root root    0 2005-06-06 05:17 cdrecorder
> drwxrwxrwx   1 root root    0 2005-06-06 05:17 floppy
> drwxr-xr-x   2 root root 4096 2005-05-19 05:48 
> usb-storage-odd-Sony-SonyDSC:0:0:0p1
> 
> SuSEbox:/home/roger # ls -l /dev/hdd
> brw-------  1 roger disk 22, 64 2004-04-07 01:27 /dev/hdd
> 
> SuSEbox:/home/roger # chmod a+rw /dev/hdd
> 
> SuSEbox:/home/roger # ls -l /dev/hdd
> brw-rw-rw-  1 roger disk 22, 64 2004-04-07 01:27 /dev/hdd
> 
> SuSEbox:/home/roger # cd /media/cdrecorder/
> SuSEbox:/media/cdrecorder # ls
> /bin/ls: .: No medium found
> 
> The interesting thing that's come from this exercise is that I now 
> realise that I'm preferring to use the command line to do this, so in 
> that regard I'm making progress.  Now if only I could get the drive 
> working...

Are you sure there is a cd in there that has a file system that is
understood by your linux system? I say that because if you wrote it
under windows it may have a udf (packet) filesystem.

try this as root:

sf root # file -Ls /dev/cdroms/cdrom0
/dev/cdroms/cdrom0: ISO 9660 CD-ROM filesystem data 'WIN98 SE
' (bootable)

OK so the file command tells me that the cd in the
device /dev/cdroms/cdrom0 is ISO 9660, is bootable and is labelled
Windows 98 SE (OK so I am caught out!)

You may need to substitute your own cdrom device for /dev/cdroms/cdrom0



> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Rout wrote:
> 


Reply via email to