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

Re: Installation



On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Kent West wrote:

> At 11:14 PM 4/26/1999 -0400, rlorin@mindspring.com wrote:
> >Thanks, but unfortunately it did not work. The error message was something
> >like "can not mount cdrom /dev/scd0 is not a block device. What is a block
> >device anyway
[snip]
> answers, but you might try, as root, a command like:
>  mount -t iso9660 /dev/sdc /cdrom
> where "-t is09660" means that this is a cdrom file system, and "/cdrom" is
> an existing directory on your linux box that serves as a "mount point" for
> mounting the cdrom drive. The "/dev/sdc" assumes that the drive is the
> third device on the SCSI chain (I think), so if it's not the 3rd device,
> modify the "c" part accordingly. I'm pretty sure you do NOT want
> "/dev/scd0", because the "0" would (I would think) mean the 0th partition.
> 
> Hope I'm not just spewing bad info left and right....

That is reasonable, but I'm sorry it is wrong. Almost everything
else is OK. The right device for a first scsi cdrom is /dev/scd0.

The syntax for mounting a scsi cdrom is

	mount  -r -t iso9660 /dev/scd0 /cdrom

The -r is really immaterial, since the cd ReadOnlyMemory is by its
nature read only. The mount command will mount readonly, no matter
whether you use -r.

Mounting will fail if you don't have a directory /cdrom :). You
also must have kernel support enabled for the iso file system,
support for general scsi, and specifically, support for scsi
cdroms.

This command will also fail if you don't have a cd in the drive,
or have a bad drive. 

If you don't have these supported in your kernel, then you will
have to recompile a kernel. Many people can help with that better
than I, but if you ask, I will gladly tell you what I did to
produce a usable kernel. 

--David
David Teague, dbt@cs.wcu.edu
Debian GNU/Linux Because software support should be free, timely,
                 useful, technically accurate, and friendly.
		 (I hope this is all of the above.)





Reply to: