Re: cdrtools cdrecord/cdrecord.c

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > > And in case you also missunderstood forks: A fork is a _working_ and
> > > _maintained_ modified version of a program. What you see with the bastardized 
> > > cdrtools versions on Linux is neither working nor maintained, it is just
> > > a result of the religion of the makers who seem to ingnore the wishes of the 
> > > users because they do not fix the bugs they introduced.
> > >      
> > Oh, FFS. Give it a rest, Joerg. Most of the work that the various
> > Linux distro people have done on cdrtools is to fix real bugs that you
> > won't acknowledge. Sometimes users simply want things to work on their
> > systems, rather than random Solaris advocacy...
> >    
>
> Should this be a joke?
>
> Please tell me why an unmodified cdrecord runs best on Linux and
> why > 90% of all bugs on the Debian bug tracking system for cdrtools 
> are caused by the modifications done by Debian.
>  

1 - "runs best" is meaningless without metrics
2 - because people report bugs in the base code to the author (you) not 
Debian?

> I fix all bugs that are verifiably caused by cdrecord and I try to find 
> workarounds for all OS bugs. People just need to send a usable bug report.
AFAIK that's correct, but you did not and should not claim "promptly" 
there, another reason why vendor versions are used by many.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979