... _ non-zero _ pad bytes ...
A short is ok or better pad 300 kB zeros would be of help.
Joerg I cannot tell, better you use zeroes.
Thanks, Joerg and Volker, for the advice.
I'll keep padsize=300k with CDs.
tradition suggest that TAO mode does not need to know the
track size in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tracksize was unknown - man cdrecord tells you how to
deal with this problem.
I have read that. But the man page as well as cdrecord
tradition suggest that TAO mode does not need to know the
track size in advance.
Well there are writers tha need the track in
Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:49:28PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
How do you believe that you may run cdrecord without root privs without
compromising the security of the whole system?
On OpenBSD, members of the operator group are allowed to reboot the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg
Just download from
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/
I did, but then encountered some difficulties when
burning CD-RW on the fly via cdrecord's stdin :
Cdrecord-ProDVD-Clone 2.01b31 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 Jörg
Schilling
me
cdrecord: Must specify track size(s).
Next i set the CDR_SECURITY variable and shwoops
my pipe did work. It is reproducible: unset CDR_SECURITY
spoils it again.
Joerg
Without CDR_SECURITY, a max size if 1 GB os allowed
I see your point.
The tracksize was unknown - man cdrecord
Are there objections against having the only track of a CD
ending with 300+ kB of _ non-zero _ pad bytes rather than the
padding provided by cdrecord padsize=... or mkisofs -pad ?
A short is ok or better pad 300 kB zeros would be of help.
If this 300kb (150 sectors, 2 seconds) is to
On OpenBSD, members of the operator group are allowed to
reboot the system, change tapes ... normal things that
someone trusted to operate the system would be allowed to do.
Letting them write to CD/DVD is very low on the scale of bad
things they could already do, like boot into single user
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 11:04:41AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
On OpenBSD, members of the operator group are allowed to
reboot the system, change tapes ... normal things that
someone trusted to operate the system would be allowed to do.
Letting them write to CD/DVD is very low on the
Volker Kuhlmann
Let's not forget that there are 2 separate changes SuSE makes: the DVD
addons (daft, and I've told them so),
About that i don't care much.
growisofs covers all my DVD needs.
I understand, though, that these DVD addons are an
unfriendly gesture towards the only person who
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:10:12AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Volker Kuhlmann
Let's not forget that there are 2 separate changes SuSE makes: the DVD
addons (daft, and I've told them so),
About that i don't care much.
growisofs covers all my DVD needs.
I understand, though, that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
come up with suggestions how to force SuSE to follow the GPL again.
Jörg
How about providing operational binaries for
SuSE users at the cdrtools download site ?
... just check:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/
I meant vanilla cdrecord
cdrecod. The ProDVD binaries just behave the same as the
cdrecord compiled from the GPLd part of the source in case you
do not like to get more functionality than the GPLd source includes.
Except for the time bomb?
Volker
--
Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Volker
I would have provided cdrecord packages, alas I never had problems with
the SuSE-supplied ones, therefore no point spending time on it.
The binary (with DVD patch, disclaimer and all) which i
found after system installation did not
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cdrecod. The ProDVD binaries just behave the same as the
cdrecord compiled from the GPLd part of the source in case you
do not like to get more functionality than the GPLd source includes.
Except for the time bomb?
Try to keep yourself informed
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:49:28PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
How do you believe that you may run cdrecord without root privs without
compromising the security of the whole system?
On OpenBSD, members of the operator group are allowed to reboot the
system, change tapes ... normal things
Joerg
Just download from
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/
I did, but then encountered some difficulties when
burning CD-RW on the fly via cdrecord's stdin :
Cdrecord-ProDVD-Clone 2.01b31 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 Jörg
Schilling
Unlocked features:
Limited
cdrecod. The ProDVD binaries just behave the same as the
cdrecord compiled from the GPLd part of the source in case you
do not like to get more functionality than the GPLd source includes.
Except for the time bomb?
Try to keep yourself informed before posting...
It was a question.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:47:50AM +0200, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 19 August 2004 07:51, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I doubt any government regards the GPL as an entity, so the GPL
has no rights. the GPL is a contract; following the GPL gives
entities rights. SuSE can release a really buggy
However, none of this is the issue. What Jörg is getting worked up
about is that he gets email from people complaining about bugs in a
version of his software that he has nothing to do with (neither
that version of cdrecord nor the bugs). That's the real issue.
I can totally sympathise
come up with suggestions how to force SuSE to follow the GPL again.
Jörg
How about providing operational binaries for
SuSE users at the cdrtools download site ?
That would help the little SuSE users because
they do not have to cope with the compile time
problems.
That would consolidate the
then why all the griping about GPL violations?
If this question is in my direction: because I got fed up with constant
and annoying gripes about GPL violations by someone who can't even
point to a reasonable actual violation[1] and then can't comply
himself[2].
Besides, I'd like to know the
How about providing operational binaries for
SuSE users at the cdrtools download site ?
I would have provided cdrecord packages, alas I never had problems with
the SuSE-supplied ones, therefore no point spending time on it.
Volker
--
Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
come up with suggestions how to force SuSE to follow the GPL again.
Jörg
How about providing operational binaries for
SuSE users at the cdrtools download site ?
If you would look a bit to the left and to the right before posting,
you would know that this is true since
On Thu 19 August 2004 14:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Obviously you're on the back foot and ran out of arguments,
otherwise you wouldn't spend a whole email on discussing a
minor point (so I didn't check my PPS carefully enough) and
nothing else,
come up with suggestions how to force SuSE to follow the GPL again.
Jörg
How about providing operational binaries for
SuSE users at the cdrtools download site ?
... just check:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/
I meant vanilla cdrecord for CD.
As produced by compiling
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give a better method do deal with the GPL violations.
There is absolutely no doubt that you are violating the GPL. SuSE is
not, let me remind you firmly that the GPL grants the right to make
changes, which you seem to conveniently ignore. SuSE even marks
JS There is absolutely no doubt that SuSE is violating GPL.
JS
JS /*--*/
JS Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
JS that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
JS
There is absolutely no doubt that SuSE is violating GPL.
/*--*/
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If
On Thu 19 Aug 2004 12:03:07 NZST +1200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
you are nothing but a moron that has no clue and that is not even willing to do
a comparison test with the real cdrecord because you are in fear that you might
see immediately where the differences are :-(
Yes, those differences
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:36:05PM +1200, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
On Thu 19 Aug 2004 12:03:07 NZST +1200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
you are nothing but a moron that has no clue and that is not even willing to do
a comparison test with the real cdrecord because you are in fear that you might
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do you think chances are of people upgrading to a version of
cdrecord which is non-GPL and grossly violates the terms of the GPL? As
you perpetually whinge about people not complying with clause blabla of
the GPL, violating the GPL yourself gives the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do you think chances are of people upgrading to a version of
cdrecord which is non-GPL and grossly violates the terms of the GPL? As
you perpetually whinge about people not complying with clause blabla of
the GPL, violating the
Why do you believe that a test that only hits people that are already known
for violating the GPL (SuSE) is a problem?
Give a better method do deal with the GPL violations.
There is absolutely no doubt that you are violating the GPL. SuSE is
not, let me remind you firmly that the GPL grants
NEW features of cdrtools-2.01a37:
Note that we are close before publishing release 2.01 final. Please test for
problems that might make the cdrtools unusable.
It is unlikely that there will be anothe test release after cdrtools-2.01a37
All:
- Added a Note to README.linux:
It is unlikely that there will be anothe test release after cdrtools-2.01a37
What do you think chances are of people upgrading to a version of
cdrecord which is non-GPL and grossly violates the terms of the GPL? As
you perpetually whinge about people not complying with clause blabla of
the GPL,
35 matches
Mail list logo
