Guys, this is great stuff and I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your
knowledge. It has been all helpful and englightening. It also helps me help
others I know that my be struggling with similar issues on their machines.
:-)
=
_
Susan Macchia
mailto:[EMAIL
On Thursday 25 October 2001 09:13 pm, you sent an epistle:
Bingo ! This was the problem! Doh...when I removed /dev/sr1 and changed
the minor number to 1, it worked fine!
Thanks for everyone's help on this - an interesting learning experience.
But I am still curious why I have to have both
Collins Richey babbled on about:
massive snip
I don't know the truth, but I was told earlier by someone on the list
that it's all or nothing. Once you are using scsi support for the
CD-RW, you get it for the regular CD as well. That's the way I'm
running - /dev/sr0 for the writer and
R. Quenett babbled on about:
I don't know much about linux so perhaps you're better off waiting for a
reply from someone who does...
...but I was building a kernel the other day and browsing through the help
topics for the various options when I noticed one that said, iirc,
something to the
On Friday 26 October 2001 09:01 am, you sent an epistle:
Collins Richey babbled on about:
massive snip
I don't know the truth, but I was told earlier by someone on the list
that it's all or nothing. Once you are using scsi support for the
CD-RW, you get it for the regular CD as well.
On Friday 26 October 2001 06:02, Susan Macchia wrote:
[snip]
There are differences btwn 2.2 (RH7.0) and 2.4 (RH7.1) kernels.
The bottom line is that ide-scsi.o is required to translate scsi to ide
because there is only scsi burning software out there.
The basics of ide-scsi.o is that it will
On Friday 26 October 2001 12:43, Susan Macchia wrote:
Why wouldn't my hard drives suffer the same problem?
They absolutely and certainly DO suffer the same problem *if* ide-cd is
compiled as a module, not monolithic.
--
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wish I could upgrade my kernel (don't have the time to roll my own kernel -
wish I did). I can't because the pptp tunneling into my place of work only
works on RH 7.0, not 7.1... And I work from home regularly 1-2x per week. And
at night, and on weekends when necessary. I don't want to have
[snip]
---
lsmod shows:
Module Size Used by
parport_probe 3428 0 (autoclean)
parport_pc 7464 1 (autoclean)
lp 5416 0 (autoclean)
parport 7312 1 (autoclean) [parport_probe parport_pc
--- Susan Macchia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
---
lsmod shows:
Module Size Used by
parport_probe 3428 0 (autoclean)
parport_pc 7464 1 (autoclean)
lp 5416 0 (autoclean)
parport
I put this in another message, but you may have missed it. So please accept my
apology for posting this info again :-)
When I have my cd-rom on /dev/sr0 and my cd-rw on /dev/sr1, the
following occurs when I mount:
$ mount /dev/sr0 /mnt/cdrom
mount: block device
Without seeing a full ls report of /dev/sr? and/or /mnt it's hard to say.
Just reading what you wrote sounds like /mnt/cdrw is linked to /mnt/cdrom
One of you satements also lists /dev/cdrw, if that is correct, what is
/dev/cdrw linked to? /dev/sr0? /dev/sr1? What are permissions on
Please axe the symlinks. /dev/cd* should be deleted until you get this
straightened out.
--- Susan Macchia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put this in another message, but you may have missed it. So please
accept my
apology for posting this info again :-)
When I have my cd-rom on /dev/sr0 and
IIRC, both of these drives are actually IDE and you're doin'
SCSI-emulation, right? And, you did some mknod's on your own, right?
From your previous post:
$ mknod /dev/sr0 b 11 0
and
$ mknod /dev/sr1 b 11 0
I never saw this snippet before, but this is obliviously (sic) an error.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Net Llama [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Susan Macchia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
---
lsmod shows:
Module Size Used by
parport_probe 3428 0 (autoclean)
parport_pc 7464
Previously, Susan Macchia chose to write:
Bingo ! This was the problem! Doh...when I removed /dev/sr1 and changed
the minor number to 1, it worked fine!
Thanks for everyone's help on this - an interesting learning experience.
But I am still curious why I have to have both cdrom/rw
I don't know much about linux so perhaps you're better off waiting for a reply from
someone who does...
...but I was building a kernel the other day and browsing through the help topics for
the
various options when I noticed one that said, iirc, something to the effect that if
both the
scsi
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Net Llama [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think you're greatly overcomplicating this process. First, there
should be no need to create new block devices or symlinks to block
devices. Remove all of that cruft, as its only confusing the
configuration
First, thanks for your reply.
I think you're greatly overcomplicating this process. First, there
should be no need to create new block devices or symlinks to block
devices. Remove all of that cruft, as its only confusing the
configuration further.
I had to create the block device for
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Net Llama [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tell that to my box with the CDRW in it. It has both an IDE CDROM
IDE
CDRW. Linux sees mounts the CDROM as /dev/hdc, and sees mounts
the
CDRW as /dev/sr0. This is with a 2.4.x kernel, FWIW.
--- Collins
That could very well be the problem. Build your own kernel, and then at
least, you know what you're working with. Plus, you are using RH-7.0,
which is an abomination in of itself. At least upgrade to 7.1 so that
everything you compile isn't fundamentally broken.
--- Susan Macchia [EMAIL
--- Susan Macchia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, thanks for your reply.
I think you're greatly overcomplicating this process. First, there
should be no need to create new block devices or symlinks to block
devices. Remove all of that cruft, as its only confusing the
configuration
22 matches
Mail list logo
