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

Re: cdrdao, atapi, k3b



On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:31:01AM -0500, Laurence J. Lane wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:27:17AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> > In the kde users list there was a thread (I got late to it) about
> > certain version of cdrdao used in Redhat being able to use atapi
> > interface. cdrdao I think is behind k3b. My question: Does anyone
> > know anything about this? I would be glad if I could use cdrdao
> > with atapi.
> 
> The changelog of cdrdao in sid suggests cdrdao can do ATAPI:
> 
>   cdrdao (1:1.1.7-4) experimental; urgency=low
> 
>   * Ram in a new version of libscg. This should get the linux 2.5+ ATAPI
>     interface to work.

I use cdrdao at least once a week, and I've been running 2.6 on my box
with the fast burner since about two days before the date on that
changelog entry - yeah, these things are not unrelated. It works at
least as well as cdrecord does (which isn't very; it can't manage more
than about 42x, and this burner can do 48x). So far, all problems have
been blamed on ide-cd.

I've no idea how the redhat version compares; they must have done it
independently. I did it just using the Debian cdrecord and cdrdao
source, dumping in the libscg tree from cdrecord and beating it until
it compiled.

Totally undocumented, of course. But if you know how it works in
cdrecord, it's pretty easy to guess how it works in cdrdao (that's all
I did).

I know that k3b in SuSE 8.2 does not support atapi because its setup
dialog was written by a moron, and it refuses to accept non-scsi
device strings (if the broken sanity check was removed, it would just
work; once again idiocy has triumphed over abstraction). That is the
sum total of my knowledge regarding k3b, except to note the presence
of #227336.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: