Re: cdrecord and scsi-3 compliance
>From: Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
>> Doing it correctly would cause a major rewrite of the libscg code.
>Yes. But what does this reply *mean*? Does it mean that such
>modification is simply out of the question? For all eternity?
Well, portability in a quality as with my software takes a lot of effort.
Speaking for cdrecord, the change not really needed as no writer uses
something differnt from lun 0.
In a long term, it is more important wo verify libscg low level code
for all platforms. This is what I am currently doing. Note that
a bug in scsi-mac-iokit.c caused "pxupgrade" not to work on MacOS X
As you see, having closed source sometimes gives you possibilities you
wount ever get with OSS and there are a lot of people who help with
a libscg port but later don't test the code thoroughly enough. When I
run scgcheck myself, it takes me a few minutes, but I need access....
And not to say, somethimes I like to add new functionality to cdrecord,
star and other programs.
>> In any case, the low level transport code needs to set the lun bits
>> if the SCSI level is <= 3.
>Not '<=', but '<'. A.
Well, SCSI-3 did not include this new feature in the beginning, so
any firmware that enforces the lun field to be zero for SCSI-3 is broken.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Reply to: