From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 10:24:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7285737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-56339.0x50c6aa0a.abnxx2.customer.tele.dk [80.198.170.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8155443FA3 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id h59HOW2b008475; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:24:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sos) From: Soeren Schmidt Message-Id: <200306091724.h59HOW2b008475@spider.deepcore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20030609170825.GA14499@sheol.localdomain> To: hawkeyd@visi.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:24:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL98b (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 cc: hackers at FreeBSD Subject: Re: Backporting burncd w/VCD support to 4.5-REL-p24 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:24:52 -0000 It seems D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > > Doing a backport to 4.5 will include changes to the ATA driver in the > > kernel as well as to burncd, and is not a trivial matter... > > I feared as much. Would this be the ATAPICAM (?) stuff done for 4.6? > OTOH, I backported the ICH sound support to 4.3; I'm not afraid of > tinkering with the kernel. But p'raps this comparison is apples and > oranges in terms of complexity. I have no idea about the ATAPICAM stuff, what I'm talking about is the hooks for burncd etc... > > It would be far easier to upgrade the system to something newer like > > at least 4.7 where the support is already in... > > I realize this, of course. I'm hesitant to do this because some of my > hardware is pretty old now, and I fear that the newer ATA/ATAPI sub- > system may not like some of my hardware. I do recall quite a few posts > about problems with the newer subsystem, but then again, quite some > time has passed now. Well, you need the new ATA/ATAPI system for this to work I'm afraid... > Lemme ask you this, then: Given a FBSD 4.5 system, is the CAM xpt > module patch (T. Quinot) and cdrecord a [more] viable option? Or am > I basically SOOL? I have no idea, others might have the answer to that.. -Søren