As per http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00078.html and
http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00082.html 6 (six) a>=40
multi.c bugs were reported:
#1. end-less loop [or premature exit from it] in read_merging_directory;
#2. incorrect merge of extents from previous session [generated by
alternative iso9660 formatter];
#3. files or extents are omitted from multi-session recording due to
incorrect value returned by read_merging_directory;
#4. failure to sort merged directory because of insufficient clean-up in
check_prev_session;
#5. failure to sort merged directory if multi-extent files share same
iso9660 name;
#6. apparent memory leak in check_prev_session;
Of these 6 bugs two were fixed, #1 and #4, and one, #3, kind of fixed.
If you found real problems, it would help a lot if we could discuss things in a
way that allows us to forward.
The problem with your reports is that you mix several problems into one report
and that you only partially describe the problems in a way that allows to repeat
them.
It's the best I can do [in my limited time].
You also send cumulated patches that include changes that itself introduce
bugs. This is why I could only fix about three problems from the list you send
half a year ago.
As I've said earlier, my patches primarily serve educational purpose.
They should be considered as compliment to problem report, not
*necessarily* solution (even though I can confirm that they work for
me). I mean they kind of say the same thing at problem report, but in a
way that is presumably harder to misinterpret (even though it might be
harder to interpret).
I am going to fix all problems that can be verified,
I reckon there is enough information to reproduce the problems. If not,
ask for specific details.
but I am not going to
apply patches if I see a single problem in a provided patch. I am adopting
patches only if they do not introduce obvious new problems and in case that some
basic tests pass with the new code.
As ISO-9660 allows to introduce many dirty tricks, many of them are unsupported
by mkisofs, so please reorder your list to let #2 appear last.
Why? Bug #2 doesn't have anything to do with other bugs and steps to
reproduce it were very detailed:
http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2008/07/msg00082.html.
For the reasons mentioned above, I propose that you present each item in your
list separately together with a description that allows to repeat the problem.
If you have a fix that is specific to this problem, you are of course welcome to
present your fix.
Sorry, but no, I don't have time for this. I'm ready to discuss contents
of my reports in some extent, but not the form. A.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to cdwrite-requ...@other.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@other.debian.org
