Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:28:51 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, eadler@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: bin/160979: 9.0 burncd error caused by change to cd0 from acd0 Message-ID: <4E8126D3.5020407@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E811FF7.7010607@a1poweruser.com> References: <201109262324.p8QNO0NN070853@freefall.freebsd.org> <4E811FF7.7010607@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/26/2011 17:59, Fbsd8 wrote: > Your solution is very un-professional. Good thing we're all volunteers. :) > What your solution purposes to do > is do nothing. I think your judgment is flawed and a larger group of > your peers need to review your judgment in this case. Ok, done. Eitan is right. > burncd has been part of the system utilities included in the basic > release since release 4.0 and cdrecord is a port. The professional > solution is to remove burncd from the 9.0 system release and add the > cdrecord command to the basic release as the replacement for burncd. > Then add release notes entry of the change. I think you misunderstand the situation. So here are a few hopefully helpful facts: 1. The fact that something is in the base, or in the ports, has absolutely no bearing on whether one piece of software is fundamentally more useful or valuable than another. 2. burncd has only ever worked with a subset of the legacy ATA hardware. 3. ATA-CAM is on by default in FreeBSD 9 (which means that rather than acd0 as an ATA device you'll have cd0 as a SCSI device). 4. However, ATA-CAM is not mandatory, which means that leaving burncd in the base for those that want to continue using the legacy ATA interface is a perfectly reasonable course of action. 5. For those that wish to use the default ATA-CAM interface the cdrecord port provides a mature, full-featured solution. Even if it were possible to import it into the base, doing so would be a step in the wrong direction. > You do not knowingly leave a non-working utility in the system, period, That makes sense, however see above. > or not provide a included replacement for a popular utility as this one. The alternative already exists. The fact that it's not in the base has no relevance. I hope this clears up your confusion. If you have any further questions please direct them to freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org only. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E8126D3.5020407>