Re: [cdrtools PATCH (GPL)] Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-02-03:
> "Jim Crilly" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 02/03/06 07:31:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Matthias Andree <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.....
> cdrecord is done as good as possible.
Untrue. Proof: My patch makes it operate more smoothly on Linux.
> Note that if peope send a patch together with personal infringements or
> untrue claims, the best I can do is to ignore alltogether.
Look who's talking, and what. Personal infringements? If you're
sensitive, my apologies, I didn't mean to insult you.
> 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.
I am absolutely serious about the patch and about my recent findings
after looking at libscg.
I just don't want my name tainted with accidents that happen during
integration because you don't have a recent Linux installation. The
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK was enough of an effort, my first patch would've worked,
too, hence the GPL.
> I am of course interested to make cdrecord better, but for the price
> of spending an ridiculously amount of time ob LKML.
Well, if you'd listened and attempted to understand our scanning
concerns, you'd probably have had libscg use a unified ATA:/SCSI:
namespace in Linux for 1½ years. OK, spilled milk.