Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:47:15 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.com> To: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cant burn a cd iso Message-ID: <20090630214715.GB33849@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <4a4a63e0.riuxFeNZRJTjkScH%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a487b0b.il/42Wi7dzHBxk4X%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4A03C3.6070903@icyb.net.ua> <4a4a05f5.7bXPwuzCTABxJvS6%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20090630160809.GA31594@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <4a4a63e0.riuxFeNZRJTjkScH%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:13:36PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.com> wrote: > > > The port available in sysutils/cdrtools-devel is 2.01.01a59, so what's the > > big deal? > > It is not a big deal if this version is installed by default ;-) What do you mean "by default"? sysutils/cdrtools is not part of the base installation of FreeBSD, that's why it's a port. At some point down the line you installed sysutils/cdrtools. I'm just suggesting that you should have installed sysutils/cdrtools-devel instead. > > > What is the reason for following the "Old/Stable" link? > > > > Probably he was following the "stable" part. This implies that the newer > > versions are not stable, which is why there's a cdrtools-devel port. > > As I mentioned before: stable means dead -> no longer taken care of. Yes, we all know your interpretation of the world "stable", which is not the expected meaning that FreeBSD folks generally intend when they use that term. I certainly would not call RELENG_7 "dead". When someone sees one link that says "stable" (not one stating "dead"), they assume that the opposite means "unstable". I suspect the port maintainer for cdrtools made this assumption and choose "stability" over "possibly not tested as much". > > > 2.01 is completely outdated and should be avoided because of many bugs (e.g. in > > > mkisofs). > > > > It's not always the case that newer versions are more stable and have fewer > > bugs. In fact, cdrtools in particular has been that way in the past, where > > mkisofs(1) created ISOs which were buggy (in that they were not even > > mountable, or sometimes were mountable but some of the file pointers went > > past the end of the ISO). In those times, I've had to drop back a version > > During the past 5 years, I fixed dozens of bugs in mkisofs from the early days > of mkisofs. A bug that matches your description did never exist. That's a pretty far-fetched statement. I will assume that you mean that this was not a bug that you fixed or that you did an exhaustive search through the reported bugs and did not find such a report. I can assure you that such a bug did exist around the FreeBSD 5.0 or 5.1 timeframe (six years ago). I had two vanilla machines building release images and one machine's ISOs sometimes failed. The two boxes had slightly different cdrtools versions installed. I downgraded the one and things worked correctly. I'm not 100% positive, but looking at my distfiles archive from around that time, I believe the working version was 2.00.3 and the broken version was 2.01a31. I can't be too sure because I lost a number of distfiles in my archive. My test case to prove the cause of the issue was something like: # mkisofs -v -pad -r -hide-rr-moved -o test.iso /5.1/R/cdrom/disc1/ # mdconfig -au0 -f test.iso # mount -t cd9660 /dev/md0 /cdrom # find /cdrom -type f -exec dd if='{}' of=/dev/null bs=1m \; When it worked, the find generated no output. When it was broken, I would see I/O errors IIRC. > > or two to get a decent ISO. Maybe this is no longer the case since 2.01. > > Maybe you should provide a short summary of the known issues in 2.01 that > > are fixed in 2.01.01a60 and some assurances that the latter produces broken > > images left often than the former. > > As mentioned above, such a problem did never exist. > > If you did observe such problems, you did not use mkisofs but something else. > Did you use the defective fork from Debian? Did someone else modified your > local version? Nope, just a vanilla FreeBSD install and some ports needed to build a release, including cdrtools. Note that my statements were not intended to criticize cdrtools, just that I sympathize with port maintainers' desire to keep a more "stablized" version around for things that are essential, such as ports used for building a release. Pardon the pun, but when you've been *burned* once, you're more careful to avoid any repeats. And I burned a lot of coasters that day before I downgraded my cdrtools installation. > > Also it would probably help if you were more civil about it. Andriy asked > > a reasonable question and made a reasonable assumption about the term > > "stable". > > I was and I am still very friendly and explained the meaning of the word > "stable". What is your problem? It seemed like you were being demanding from people who are volunteering their time. Certainly your previous email seemed to me that you were being somewhat arrogant as well. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are attempting to be civil and I fully retract my statement. Cheers, -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090630214715.GB33849>