On 08/19/2013 09:58 AM Joerg Schilling wrote:
> ken <gebser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> If you are using this bad fork that is from September 2004 - 9 years ago, you
>>> suffer from many problems, like incomplete documentation and many bugs that
>>> cannot be found in the original software.
>>
>> cdrecord and readcd are both part of this package:
>>
>> $ rpm -qi cdrecord
>> Name : cdrecord Relocations: (not relocatable)
>> Version : 2.01 Vendor: CentOS
>> Release : 10.7.el5 Build Date: Thu 26 Feb 2009
>> 06:30:50 PM EST
>> Install Date: Mon 05 Sep 2011 03:03:56 PM EDT Build Host:
>> chamkaur.karan.org
>> Group : Applications/Archiving Source RPM:
>> cdrtools-2.01-10.7.el5.src.rpm
>> Size : 1383954 License: GPL
>> Signature : DSA/SHA1, Sun 08 Mar 2009 09:45:19 PM EDT, Key ID
>> a8a447dce8562897
>> Packager : Karanbir Singh <kbsingh@xxxxxxxxx>
>> URL : http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/cdrecord.html
>> Summary : A command line CD/DVD recording program.
>> Description :
>> ....
>>
>> The "Description" states nothing about it being from a bad fork from
>> 2004. :) So how would anyone know?
>
> You will not get useful version information from calling "rpm".
>
> There is nothing like: cdrtools-2.01-10.7.el5
[cdrtools-2.01-10.7.el5 ist einmalig???]
You're saying this is the preferred package, yes? and it will have the
functionality needed? If yes and yes, where does one get that package?
Note that my rpm command output above says:
Source RPM: cdrtools-2.01-10.7.el5.src.rpm
>
> If you like to know what you are using, I recommend to call:
>
> cdrecord -version
> cdda2wav -version
> readcd -version
> mkisofs -version
So there should be something definitive to say about these:
$ cdrecord -version
Cdrecord-Clone 2.01 (cpu-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.
$ cdda2wav -version
cdda2wav version 2.01_linux_2.6.18-92.1.10.el5_x86_64_x86_64
$ readcd -version
readcd 2.01 (cpu-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1987, 1995-2003 J�rg Schilling
$ mkisofs -version
mkisofs 2.01 (cpu-pc-linux-gnu)
>
> If you are using original software, you will see someting like:
>
> Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 3.01a16 (i386-pc-solaris2.11) Copyright (C) 1995-2013 Joerg Schilling
>
> If one of the commends does not print a message like this, you should be
> careful.
Well, I'm always careful (except that one time I backed my car into the
garage door).
Without knowing what is *essential* in the "-version" output, it's hard
to say anything definitive. Jörg, I'm not a lawyer, but I know it's
possible to get a tradename which then others could use only with your
permission. So is you owned "Jörg's unmessed with software" or "Jörg's
truly functional code", you could put that in the "-version" output, but
no one else could unless they had your permission... iow, they couldn't
muck with your code and then confuse people by saying it's your code.
(I'm assuming that this is what you mean by "original".) This then
would constitute a definitive determination.
>
> BTW: cdrtools-2.01 is from September 2004.
>
>>> Programs like grip and cdparanoia don't care about the usability of the
>>> extracted files for later burning tasks and they are not able to extract so
>>> called "un-CDs".
What's an "un-CD"?
>>>
>>> cdda2wav knows about the writing process, feteches cddb data and includes a
>>> bug-fixed libparanoia.
>>>
>>> Recent man pages also contain several related examples. Did you read a recent
>>> manpage and follow the EXAMPLE section?
>>
>> I don't know what is meant here by "recent". Which is the earliest
>> version which contains the functionality required?
>
> The features in question are in since a longer time, but if you are on a Linux
> distro that does not deliver up-to-date software, you should expect that there
> are bugs in your version that never have been in the original software.
What I hear is that you and Redhat/CentOS have different ideas as to
what "up-to-date" means. My system is completely up-to-date as defined
by the latter.
For a person of considerable talents as you, it shouldn't be a big deal
to put together an RPM package for currently supported RH/cOS (v. 5.9
and 6.x) with the needed utilities and which wouldn't break dependent
apps such as k3b, grip, gnome-cd, etc. Then these two disparate worlds
would be united, at least as far as burning and ripping CDs and DVDs goes.
>
> Since 2004, the man pages have been completely rewritten for better
> readability, the features have been massively enhanced (they did more than double
> since September 2004) and many bugs have been fixed. In January 2010, cdda2wav
> e.g. added support for hidden tracks. Mkisofs added support for libfind in 2006
> and cdrecord added support for BluRay in 2007.
>
> Would you like to run a Linux kernel from 2004 today?
No. But I wouldn't either want to go back to the days before package
management.
>
>
> Jörg
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
