SOLVED! Re: cdrecord no workie after upgade to 2.6.10

[Net Llama!]

Turns out something was wonky with the CDRW (disc) that i was trying to 
use.  Using an ordinary CDR and all is well.  I still don't understand 
why cdrecord was just hanging.  I'd think that software that's been out 
for as long as cdrecord would have better error handling.

On 12/31/2004 08:00 PM, Kurt Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 06:51:12PM -0800, Net Llama! took 94 lines to write:
> 
>>On 12/31/2004 06:34 PM, Kurt Wall wrote:
>>
>>>There were several threads about cdrecord hanging on LKML, but I don't 
>>>recall seeing a definitive root cause analysis or a solution.
>>
>>That's interesting.  I just googled like crazy and didn't find anything. 
>>Do you have any references that you can point me to, so that i can at 
>>least learn whether its just me or if this is a real issue?
> 
> 
> Oops. I was thinking of CF readers. Sorry for the red herring.
> 
> 
>>>Hm. 2.6.9 worked okay. We have the same versions of cdrecord, but $DEITY
>>>only knows how (if) Red Hat hacked up the version they ship. Interestingly,
>>
>>I'm sure that's a good possibility, but at the same time i'm thinking 
>>this isn't a RH-ism. *shrug*
> 
> 
> Likely not.
> 
> 
>>>cdrecord's author suggests using 2.4 or Solaris:
>>
>>Jorg has been saying that for years.  Actually, i'm surprised that he's 
>>stopped telling people not to use Linux at all.  For the longest time he 
>>was openly bad mouthing linux in general and only advocating cdrecord 
>>for other UNIXes.
> 
> 
> Some people are troglodytes.
> 
> 
>>[root at hal root]# cdrecord -version
>>Cdrecord-Clone 2.01-dvd (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 
>>J??rg Schilling
>>Note: This version is an unofficial (modified) version with DVD support
>>Note: and therefore may have bugs that are not present in the original.
>>Note: Please send bug reports or support requests to 
>>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
>>Note: The author of cdrecord should not be bothered with problems in 
>>this version.
> 
> 
> Settles that, I suppose.
> 
> 
>>Hrmmm, i'm tempted to go back to 2.6.7 at this point.  I didn't have any 
>>good reasons to use 2.6.10 other than because its been a while since i 
>>last upgraded and assumed that there would be some benefits.  Seems i 
>>was way wrong.
> 
> 
> I've had no problems with 2.6.9, if you've still got the itch to upgrade
> your kernel.
> 
> Kurt


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

  22:45:00 up 1 day,  2:52,  2 users,  load average: 0.47, 0.58, 0.75