As per http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00078.html and http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00082.html 6 (six) a>=40 multi.c bugs were reported:#1. end-less loop [or premature exit from it] in read_merging_directory;#2. incorrect merge of extents from previous session [generated by alternative iso9660 formatter]; #3. files or extents are omitted from multi-session recording due to incorrect value returned by read_merging_directory; #4. failure to sort merged directory because of insufficient clean-up in check_prev_session; #5. failure to sort merged directory if multi-extent files share same iso9660 name;#6. apparent memory leak in check_prev_session;Of these 6 bugs two were fixed, #1 and #4, and one, #3, kind of fixed.If you found real problems, it would help a lot if we could discuss things in a way that allows us to forward.The problem with your reports is that you mix several problems into one reportand that you only partially describe the problems in a way that allows to repeat them.
It's the best I can do [in my limited time].
You also send cumulated patches that include changes that itself introduce bugs. This is why I could only fix about three problems from the list you send half a year ago.
As I've said earlier, my patches primarily serve educational purpose. They should be considered as compliment to problem report, not *necessarily* solution (even though I can confirm that they work for me). I mean they kind of say the same thing at problem report, but in a way that is presumably harder to misinterpret (even though it might be harder to interpret).
I am going to fix all problems that can be verified,
I reckon there is enough information to reproduce the problems. If not, ask for specific details.
but I am not going toapply patches if I see a single problem in a provided patch. I am adopting patches only if they do not introduce obvious new problems and in case that somebasic tests pass with the new code. As ISO-9660 allows to introduce many dirty tricks, many of them are unsupported by mkisofs, so please reorder your list to let #2 appear last.
Why? Bug #2 doesn't have anything to do with other bugs and steps to reproduce it were very detailed: http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00082.html.
For the reasons mentioned above, I propose that you present each item in your list separately together with a description that allows to repeat the problem. If you have a fix that is specific to this problem, you are of course welcome topresent your fix.
Sorry, but no, I don't have time for this. I'm ready to discuss contents of my reports in some extent, but not the form. A.