On Saturday 02 November 2002 08:38, psyche-list-request@redhat.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:12:46 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris@redhat.com> > To: psyche-list@redhat.com > Subject: Re: cdrecord obsolete > Organization: Red Hat Inc. > Reply-To: psyche-list@redhat.com > > On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Thomas Dodd wrote: > >>>I have a usb cdrw .. it won't work under cdrecord-1.10, but works > >>> fine > > > >Which CDRW? I have a USB CDRW and 1.10 works fine. > > > >>>under any cdrecord-1.11 version. Is there a more up to date version > >>>that's compatible with psyche available? > >> > >> cdrecord 1.11 is alpha code, and not a stable official release. > > > >True, but 1.11a38 is probably more stable/less buggy than 1.10. > > I do not necessarily disagree with you there either. > > >It's more like a development branch, and this far in, it's > >fairly stable. I wouldn't try prior to a15 or a20, but now > >it's more like the late 2.3 kernels, or the stable branch > >of a CVS repository like gcc, XFree, or mozilla. > > Again, I mostly agree with you. However, Red Hat seems to get > bashed to hell on slashdot and other forums by various morons > when alpha/beta code gets included in the distribution, or people > "believe" the code to be developmental. As such cdrtools 1.11 > alpha will go into Red Hat Linux when hell freezes over, or when > it is released as a stable official release by the author himself > (and under an acceptable OSI endorsed license). > > >Also, amost no changes will be backported to 1.10. Any bug > >reporter are asked to try the latest alpha. I think alpha is a > >poor name for the code. It much beter than alpha usually > >implies. > > Regardless, it is named an 'alpha' release, and as maintainer of > the package in Red Hat Linux, it wont go into Red Hat Linux until > it is an official stable release. If the author claims it to be > more stable and reliable than 1.10, then he should release it as > 1.12 or whatever and continue developing new code in a new > development tree. > > It is unfortunate that this is the way it is, but it is this way > because it has to be this way. If I were to include 1.11aX and > then someone complain that it doesn't work for them, and then > bitch on slashdot that Red Hat shipped a broken "alpha" version > of cdrtools, I would not be very happy now would I? So, it wont > happen. Mike, I can understand your point also .. and the good news for those of us in this particular situation (of owning a newer cdrw that's not supported by 1.10), is that someone has come to our rescue and posted rh8.0 compatible rpms for the newer 1.11a's. I've been using rh since 7.2 (a relative newbie, I realize) and I'm happy to see that there are a lot more upgrade rpm's available now than there were under 7.2. Used to be that you had to try Mandrake to get the latest updates, but now, on psyche, I can run Mozilla-1.2b, kde-3.0.4 and cdrecord-1.11a37 with only a little effort at searching the web .. and with checkinstall, I can actually make my own rpm's (without becoming an rpm expert) from source. I'm more satisfied with rh now than I was under 7.2 .. but, only because I can upgrade it myself .. otherwise, I would have switched to Mandrake. I don't like Mandrake, because it's more buggy on my machine than rh. P.S. don't let the dialog on web sites drag you down. You may not get kudos as much as you like, but the growth in people posting ought to tell you the usage is growing (and that 's the biggest positive feedback you can get). end of my 2cents.. -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
