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

Re: J?rg Schilling is damage; the community should route around him



On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> El s??b, 09-10-2004 a las 00:04 -0500, Branden Robinson escribi??:

> > It's time to fork.  Let us work with the rest of the community to
> > standardize on a new set of tools based on the last free version of
> > cdrtools, thank Mr. Schilling for his valuable contributions, and leave him
> > be to pursue his interests in proprietary software without interference
> > or argument from us.  He appears to regard placing his work under the plain
> > vanilla GNU GPL that works for so many projects as an act that he cannot
> > perform in good conscience.  Let us stop placing him in that uncomfortable
> > position.
> 
>   I agree with you. And I guess that the "good" direction would be
> pushing libburn, which seems a bit stalled right now. Also, DVD[-R[W],
> +R[W]] support should be added to it. On top of that library, it would
> be easier to build command line and GUI oriented programs, which could
> drop at that moment cdrecord.

  I wrote about this only a few days ago in a brief piece which was
 included in planet.d.o.

  At the time I was directed very quickly towards libburn.  Using
 a library seems a lot saner than  taking over any of the cdrecord 
 codebase.   If necessary a command line wrapper around the library
 could emulate the cdrecord command line options.

  I couldn't gain access to the libburn CVS repository, but I did
 download the .0.2 version and the test code worked for me.  I was
 able to burn an image using it fairly quickly, although I can't say
 how stable the code is generally.  (The API documentation was nice).

>   But what is needed there is people with time and access to different
> drives. Perhaps people behind dvd+rw-tools could be interested, and some
> company out there could sponsor this piece of software.

  I think a few individuals would be happy to host the code and work
 on it, but hardward testing really is the stumbling block - as is
 portability testing.

>   The problem with cdrecord is that it works, and though there are some
> glitches that people would like to see fixed, writing another different
> tool is only that: rewriting. And using the same language, i.e. there is
> no perl vs. python, perl vs. php, ...

  It does seem a little tedious reimplimenting code which already 
 exists, and mostly works.  This either suggests:

  1) It isn't worth doing, and we just put up with the maintainer.
  2) It shuld be done in a better way (library based?)
  3) Forking a free-er/older version.

  Given the vehemence of J?rg to SuSE and the other people 
 "illegally distributing inofficial versions (sic)" I strongly suggest
 option 3 is not a good idea - if nothign else it will lead to confusion
 amongst users.

  Perhaps having a Debian package of libburn would be a good starting
 point - then popular programs can be patched to work with it?

Steve
--

Attachment: pgpsqEc4N9v93.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: