[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#62699: cdparanoia should check/create the /dev/sg* devices that it requires.

"Dale E. Martin" <dmartin@clifton-labs.com> wrote:
> "Alan W. Irwin" <irwin@beluga.phys.uvic.ca> writes:
> > Package: cdparanoia
> > Version: 3a9.7-2
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > The cdparanoia install should check that the /dev/sg* devices that it
> > requires are available with proper ownership (root.cdrom) and
> > permissions.

Yes, I agree. I got hit by this one just recently.

> This is an interesting idea.  I would like to point out, however, that
> the /dev/sg devices are only required if you're using a SCSI cdrom drive
> or SCSI emulation on an IDE drive.  I used cdparanoia for several years
> with /dev/hd? devices and it worked OK.  (Using SCSI emulation does work
> better though.)  I don't see any harm in creating those devices,
> although changing the ownership if they exist might be a little shady.
> Also, there could be other SCSI devices the "cdrom" group shouldn't have
> access to.

I installed SCSI emulation for my IDE ATAPI CD-ROM Drive, and it would not
work until I changed the permissions. The error I was getting was not very
helpful. The program knows when it is using SCSI so it does not matter that
some people use IDE, and the program ought to suggest that permissions on
/dev/sg? could be an issue.

For example:

Can not rip from SCSI, possible reason, no permission to write to /dev/sg0.

> Some other concerns:
> 1) I don't have any idea what infrastructure already exists for such a
> feature.  Are there special Debian install tools dealing with the
> creation of devices?

Are you talking about /{sbin,dev}/MAKEDEV ? I would ignore it for now, do the
checking suggested above. I do not think it is Debian specific problem, maybe
you could forward the bug upstream.

> 2) Linux 2.4 is just around the corner.  It contains Richard Gooch's
> "devfs" which I think makes the whole issue of "/dev" go away.  I
> haven't played with it yet to be sure how it works though.

Ignore 2.4 and devfs for now, concentrate on this bug report. The only way
devfs has any affect is that the device names change.

Don't worry  --  shop.

Reply to: