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

Re: cdrom



on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:46:05PM +0100, Jose Colmenares (bernie_linux@yahoo.es) wrote:
> I have a HP Pentium I. The cdrom sudenly stopped working, and I
> replaced it for an used one (wich worked just fine). As it turns out,
> the cdrom I just installed isn´t working either... I get a message
> like: 
>  
> /dev/cdrom/ is a bad block device
>  
> The cdrom was working just fine. I brought it home and conected it to
> the PI, and now is dead. It won't even boot. I checked the conections,
> and they seem to be well.  it won't boot, or mount.
>  
> ¿what could the cause of the trouble be?
>  
> I'm a newbe to linux (have been using it for about a month) and have
> no idea of what to do.


Please set your mailer/editor linewrap to 68-75 characters.  I strongly
recommend 72 as a good default.

Thank you.


Check the file /dev/cdrom and what sort of file it is.

It *should* be a symbolic link pointing to your real cdrom device file
(/dev/hdc or /dev/hdb, most likely).  An 'ls -l' should show something
like:

    lrwxrwxrwx   1 root   root   3 2003-03-28 11:16 /dev/cdrom -> hdc

Note the initial "l" and the "->" pointing to hdc.

/dev/hdc, in my case, is a character block device, major number 22,
minor 0:

    brw-rw----   1 root   cdrom   22,   0 2002-03-14 13:51 /dev/hdc

If you don't have an equivalent device file:


    $ sudo bash -l
    # cd /dev/
    # ./MAKEDEV hdc      # Or appropriate device file
    # ln -sf hdc cdrom   # Or appropriate device file


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    George W. is deceptive to be sure. Dissembling, too. And let's not
    forget deceitful. He is lacking veracity and frankness, and void of
    sooth, though seemingly sincere in his proclivity for pretense. But
    he did not lie.
    http://www.jointhebushwhackers.com/not_a_liar.cfm

Attachment: pgpDi2Dv4_AtT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: