Re: [cdrtools PATCH (GPL)] Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)

["Jim Crilly" <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>]

On 02/03/06 08:10:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Jim Crilly" <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 02/03/06 07:31:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> 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.