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

Re: cdrdao problem



On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:25:53PM -0400, Edward J. Shornock wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> stan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I'm tring to use cdrdao to copy some new CD's. I'm using a scipt 
> >>>that I have used in the past. It looks like this:
> >>>
> >>>cdrdao copy --eject --speed 16 --eject  --device 0,0,0 --driver 
> >>>generic-mmc --source-driver generic-mmc toc
> >>>
> > Using libscg version 'schily-0.8'
> > 
> > 0,0,0 : HP      , CD-Writer cd16r , OKS1
> > 0,1,0 :         , ATAPI CDROM     , 110B
> > SHLVL=1: ERROR: unknow subsystem (scd0) in (/dev/sr0)
> > SHLVL=1: ERROR: unknow subsystem (scd1) in (/dev/sr1)
> > 
> 
> A few (possible) things...
> 
> 
> It looks like you may be using SCSI emulation.  If so, try to remove the
> ide-scsi module with "rmmod ide-scsi".  If it is built-in to your
> kernel, try recompiling without SCSI emulation.
> 
> What if you change the --device part to "--device ATAPI:0,0,0" ?
> 
> Does it fail if you run the command as root?  If not, are you in the
> "cdrom" group?  What are the permissions on /usr/bin/cdrdao?
> 
> 
> On my server, after adding myself to the cdrom group and setting cdrdao
> setuid, I receive the following:
> $ cdrdao scanbus
> Cdrdao version 1.1.9 - (C) Andreas Mueller <andreas@daneb.de>
>   SCSI interface library - (C) Joerg Schilling
>   Paranoia DAE library - (C) Monty
> 
> Check http://cdrdao.sourceforge.net/drives.html#dt for current driver
> tables.
> 
Mmm, I don't think that's the issue here. I think it's specific to the "copy" finction. I
just tried it again, the "read" part went fine, and I was prompted to enter a CD for
writing, and I got the identical failure. Then I ran:

cdrdao write --speed 16 --eject --device 0,0,0 --driver generic-mmc --overburn
/home/stan/toc4

Which wrote a avlid CD.

This is very puzzling.


-- 
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror 
- New York Times 9/3/1967



Reply to: