From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 10:52:15 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 6A17A37B401 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (conn.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD23A43F3F for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hawkeyd@visi.com) Received: from sheol.localdomain (hawkeyd-fw.dsl.visi.com [208.42.101.193]) by conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20F78183; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:52:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from hawkeyd@localhost) by sheol.localdomain (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id h59HqA214678; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:52:10 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hawkeyd) X-Spam-Policy: http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/index.html#mail Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:52:09 -0500 From: D J Hawkey Jr To: The Anarcat Message-ID: <20030609175209.GA14663@sheol.localdomain> References: <20030609170825.GA14499@sheol.localdomain> <200306091724.h59HOW2b008475@spider.deepcore.dk> <20030609174545.GL1203@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030609174545.GL1203@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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 Reply-To: hawkeyd@visi.com 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 17:52:15 -0000 On Jun 09, at 01:45 PM, The Anarcat wrote: > > On Mon Jun 09, 2003 at 07:24:32PM +0200, Soeren Schmidt wrote: > > It seems D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > > > 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've used the ATAPICAM throughout the 4.x branch and now in 5.x > without any problems, really enjoying all of cdrecord power. Um, just to clarify: FBSD 4.6 was the first release with ATAPICAM (I _think_ it was 4.6, but definitely not 4.5). Are you saying that FBSD 4.6 was nice and solid? More to the point, had you applied that CAM xpt patch to a 4.5 (or earlier) release? And solid reliability continued? Thanks for the reply, Dave -- ______________________ ______________________ \__________________ \ D. J. HAWKEY JR. / __________________/ \________________/\ hawkeyd@visi.com /\________________/ http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/