[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 Nikola Pajkovsky npajk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||npajk...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajk...@redhat.com 2010-01-05 05:26:54 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 Jörg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joerg.schill...@fokus.fraun ||hofer.de --- Comment #11 from Jörg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de 2009-02-10 09:33:59 EDT --- Cdrdao is no longer actively maintained (the last feature enhancement was 3 years ago). Cdrdao uses an extremely old libscg variant and if you care about cdrdao, this libscg needs to be updated with recent original software from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ Note that you cannot use the library from cdrtools fork distributed by readhat as this fork is in conflict with GPL and Copyright and cannot be legally distributed. The original software however has been approved by Sun legal as free software without known legal problems. BTW: Another reason for not using the fork is that the fork is not actively maintained since nearly two years and as the fork is full of well documented bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Comment #12 from Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org 2009-02-10 10:21:01 EDT --- Cdrdao is essentially in patch acceptance only mode. We can't use libscg, for the well known licensing issues which I don't want to get into, but also because of the broken way it does device scanning. Anyways, this is about the cdrdao merge review, and cdrdao now has to be compiled without libscg with the '--without-scg' option. It then uses the native sg interface and works just fine (although you'll want to use the current CVS trunk). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Comment #13 from Jörg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de 2009-02-10 10:32:20 EDT --- Please do not spread unproven claims. There are no well known license issues, there hoewever is a deffamation campaign against free software run by some Debian guys. Cdrtools had a full in depth license review done by the Sun legal department in Autum 2008 and no license problem was found. The Sun legal department found that there is no problem from letting GPLd software use CDDLs libraries. On the other side, the cdrtools fork currently distributed by redhat cannot be distributed legally as it is in conflict with GPL and Copyright. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Comment #14 from Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org 2009-02-10 10:49:18 EDT --- This needs to move somewhere else, I don't want to get into the whole licensing debate nonsense, and it's irrelevant to this review. The fact remains: libscg can't be used on linux distros for purely technical reasons (device scanning, ConsoleKit support), and I don't even know why cdrdao used it in the first place. The current cdrdao CVS trunk can be compiled to use the native SG interface, and if something doesn't work I'll commit the necessary patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Comment #15 from Jörg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de 2009-02-10 11:11:11 EDT --- Do not try to discuss techical stuff if you miss the needed background. information. libscg works perfectly on Linux _because_ of device scanning and all people who reported problems with the illegal software distributed with various linix distributions are happy with the unmodified original software. Libscg is the oldest and best supported platform independend SCSI pass through library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Comment #16 from Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org 2009-02-10 11:23:12 EDT --- Do not try to discuss techical stuff if you miss the needed background. information. Please stop polluting this BZ. You also know nothing about my technical background. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-17 10:48 EST --- Harald, ping ? I've checked in GCC 4.3 fixes upstream, or you can use the patch from gcdmaster F-9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-21 05:39 EST --- Created an attachment (id=290225) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=290225action=view) Remove bogus error checking Ok, let's get this over with :-) Looking good. 2 things: first, I'd add '--with-scglib=pkg' to the configure line to make it explicit that we're building with the scsi library shipped with cdrdao. Ok it's a minor point. second, could you add the patch i just attached ? I fixes the scanbus command on F-8 and devel. Patch should be applied at the end of current patch list. Otherwise package looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-02 12:55 EST --- Yes, sorry for slacking off on this one. Will finalize review tonight or tomorrow. I've been thinking about the future of cdrdao lately. I've worked a little on gcdmaster, but done very little maintenance work on cdrdao. I looked at a port to either cdrkit and libburn, but cdrkit doesn't have anything close to a development API, and libburn lives at a higher layer (and is not very stable yet), so it looks as though using the packaged cdrtools library is still the top option as of now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-01 12:09 EST --- Ping? Now that cdrtools has been replaced, maybe this can easily be sorted out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:36 EST --- What is the rationale for building against the version of cdrtools that's part of the tarball? Removing/Replacing cdrtools from Fedora. The rest was in there for historical reasons :) Should I link statically against a GPL version of cdrtools? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:32 EST --- The rest was in there for historical reasons :) That was my guess :-) Yes, I would suggest to compile statically against cdrecord-devel. This implies adding a BuildRequires on cdrecord-devel, and using the '--with-scglib=sys' configure option. As i said, the partial cdrtools snapshot that is shipped with cdrdao is pretty old, and Fedora's cdrtools contains many patches that cdrdao can benefit from. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:52 EST --- If cdrtools is removed completly, I have to pull in the cdrtools source in the cdrdao src.rpm. Did you consider using cdrkit? http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2-3/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-28 02:54 EST --- Is the plan for FC-7 to remove cdrtools completely then ? If that's the case, it might make sense to indeed compile against the cdrtools snapshot shipped with cdrdao, at least as a temporary solution. I have not tried to build cdrdao against cdrkit, at least not yet. It's unclear to me how much work would be required to make this happen, and i think it would fall outside the scope of this review anyway (unless it's a straightforward patch). As soon as i have a little time, i'll try to release a new upstream version with cdrkit support. I was also thinking about libburn support. Unfortunately RL work is heavy right now, so I can't really give an ETA for this :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-02 11:51 EST --- Since i'm upstream, i'll take on this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
