FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-26-2009, 12:21 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Le jeudi 26 février 2009 * 12:58 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a
écrit :
> Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum a couple
> of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up, please don't
> restart the discussion.

Why? It’s quite funny to discuss with Joerg Schilling. I prefer to do it
in private, but it is good to have some of the discussions in public: I
believe it strengthens the project by giving developers a common target,
instead of hurting each other in internal fights.

Cheers,
--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-26-2009, 12:52 PM
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le jeudi 26 février 2009 * 12:58 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a
écrit :

Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum a couple
of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up, please don't
restart the discussion.


Why? It’s quite funny to discuss with Joerg Schilling. I prefer to do it
in private, but it is good to have some of the discussions in public: I
believe it strengthens the project by giving developers a common target,
instead of hurting each other in internal fights.


But hit hurts me, and I think also Debian in general.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 01:47 PM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:

> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
> sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?

Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
that are incompatible with the Copyright law.

See my bug report from December 2006.

> > - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> > distributed.
>
> Errr, in what way?

See my bug report from December 2006.

>
> > - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> > initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> > to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> > symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> > they use the original software.
>
> As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> one notices.

It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
none of the reports applies to the original software.


> > If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> > blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> > ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> > who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> > unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> > advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> > interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
>
> Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
> stopping a fork at any later version...

The original software did not introduce licensing issues. Please do not spread
FUD. The original code had a full legal review by the Sun legal department.
The fork however is undistributable because some people ignored the rules from
GPL and Copyright law.



> > If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> > ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> > showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> > original software from:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.

The quality of the original software is much better than the quality of the
fork.

The minimal requirements for a "stable release" is that the software does not
have known bugs at release time. Using this rule, there never has been _any_
release from the fork while at the same time there have been 50 stable releases
from the orignal software.

> > fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> > bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
>
> So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
> you still have bugs. Well done.

It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
unmodified source.


> > What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> > disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
>
> Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
> impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
> yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
> Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
> don't qualify as a user. Sorry.

Don't you read the bug reports? You seem to have missed the contact to the
debian users.....



> > If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> > demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> > person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> > it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> > credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
>
> Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
> changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
> http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
> I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
> incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.

Single character spelling changes cannot count as active development.

Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?

If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.

Please note: I believe that there is no resaon for Debian to continue to
support the person "Eduard Bloch". With his activities on cdrtools, he did harm
the credibilty of Debian. As this person is no longer active since nearly two
years, it should be the right time to stop arguing based on his attacks.

What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there is
mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently work for
Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform yourself based
on neutral information instead of the attacks from this person. The next step
would be to delete the incorrect claims and the slander from the Debian servers
that have been written by this person.

The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/

compile it and install it (the latter as root) by calling "make install".
Then take the Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat buglist and test all the bugs against
the original software. You will find that all documented problem disappear once
you are using the original software (note that you may need to withdraw several
changes to other software that have been introduced to let them call cdrkit
instead of the original software).

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

**************
If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
**************

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

> Le jeudi 26 fvrier 2009 13:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a crit :
> > Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Le jeudi 26 fvrier 2009 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a crit :
> > > > If Debian likes to get sued...
> > >
> > > Nobody likes it, but since you keep claiming around and around that what
> > > we are doing is illegal, maybe it is time to see on what grounds you are
> > > saying that.
> >
> > The fork _is_ illegal and it is bad to see that Debian did hide the related bug
> > report I made in December 2006.
>
> I???ll teach you something then: trying to intimidate people by making
> legal threats without ground is illegal in many countries. Either you
> prove they have ground (and you???ll have to go to court for that), or you
> stop making such threats *right now*.

A good point: Debian currently spreads several unproven claims about the
original software. It would help a lot of these claims were removed.


> > The original software on the other side is legal.
>
> Of course, since you are the author you can do whatever you want with
> it. However, the restrictions you impose on redistribution don???t allow
> us to distribute it as we want to.

This is wrong: I don't impose any restriction that makes the original code
undistributable. The fork however includes modifications that are incompatible
with the requirements from the Copyright law and the GPL.

> > I am not sure what software you are referring to.....
> > If you are _really_ sure about this, then I recommend you to fix the bugs in
> > your software. I get however lots of reports from various users who successfully
> > replaced the non-working fork by the working original software.
>
> I seriously doubt they can use any serious and modern frontend with the
> version you are currently distributing.

If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
has been broken and needs to be fixed.

BTW:
- K3b preferres the original cdrtools because they work correctly.

- Xcdroast also works correctly if you use the original software.

There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.


> > > especially because of the lack of UTF-8 support. After all, Unicode is
> > > only a 18-year old standard, so I understand it is a bit too much to ask
> > > for its support.
> >
> > So why is there no UTF-8 support in the fork, you even have a related bug
> > report in the debian bug tracking?
>
> This report is clearly bogus. The reason why UTF-8 is not listed is that
> it is the charset that is selected when no option is specified.
>
> Several frontends to genisoimage/wodim *only* work with UTF-8 filenames.
> If they were serious issues with it, believe me, we???d know it.

You are uninformed and it does not make sense to continue the discussion
unless you first inform yourself:

- The fork introduced a non-working fake "implementation" for UTF-8 and
for this reason, there is a related bug report in the debian bug
tracking system.

- The original software implements a fully working UTF-8 support

> > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
>
> Show them. Come on.

I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!

None of the bugs listed in the debian bug tracking system applies to the
original software.

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 03:32 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Please don’t forward private replies to a public mailing list: this is
very rude behavior.

Le jeudi 26 février 2009 * 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> **************
> If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
> properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
> **************

The email you are replying to declares:

Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
[snip]
--=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

See? “charset=UTF-8”. I’m using a mail client that understands encodings
that have been developed less than 20 years ago.

> > Of course, since you are the author you can do whatever you want with
> > it. However, the restrictions you impose on redistribution don???t allow
> > us to distribute it as we want to.
>
> This is wrong: I don't impose any restriction that makes the original code
> undistributable. The fork however includes modifications that are incompatible
> with the requirements from the Copyright law and the GPL.

Repeating yourself over and over again is not going to make your claims
true.

> > I seriously doubt they can use any serious and modern frontend with the
> > version you are currently distributing.
>
> If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
> original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
> has been broken and needs to be fixed.

Indeed, the frontends have all been fixed, by calling wodim instead of
cdrecord. And now they work as expected.

> There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
> software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.

Please forward us such reports of people doing that successfully within
Debian; this looks like a lot of fun. Not forgetting that distributing
such solutions would violate the licensing of several of the frontends.

> > > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
> >
> > Show them. Come on.
>
> I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!

Sorry, but simple reports are not convincing without analysis. Please
show where the bugs come from, and explain why they don’t apply to
cdrecord.

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-26-2009, 03:36 PM
Brett Parker
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distributed.
> >
> > Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> > half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
> > sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>
> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
> Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
> that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.

Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further
spreading of FUD?

> > > - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> > > distributed.
> >
> > Errr, in what way?
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.

See above.

> >
> > > - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> > > initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> > > to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> > > symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> > > they use the original software.
> >
> > As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> > of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> > one notices.
>
> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
> CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
> against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
> none of the reports applies to the original software.

Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd
burning software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird
that you would be so biased on that isn't it?

Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
libburn projects? Apparently not everyone that is interesting in working
CD/DVD creation wants to use your software - apparently not everyone in
the world agrees with your view point. Now, kindly drop the FUD
spreading that your software is the only working software in the world
(there are plenty, for example, of free CD/DVD creation tools for the
Windows operating system, I suppose you'll claim all of those are using
your code? Yeah. Right.).

I'm very interested in *working* CD/DVD creation, and I've been very
happy with cdrkit - if you're telling me that the CDs/DVDs that I have
created (and used) with wodim don't work, then I'm *amazed*!

> > > If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> > > blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> > > ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> > > who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> > > unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> > > advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> > > interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
> >
> > Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
> > stopping a fork at any later version...
>
> The original software did not introduce licensing issues. Please do not spread
> FUD. The original code had a full legal review by the Sun legal department.
> The fork however is undistributable because some people ignored the rules from
> GPL and Copyright law.

Which rules? The author ignored the GPL by adding invariant sections,
certainly. Well done.

> > > If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> > > ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> > > showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> > > original software from:
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> >
> > The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.
>
> The quality of the original software is much better than the quality of the
> fork.

That is, of course, purely your opinion.

> The minimal requirements for a "stable release" is that the software does not
> have known bugs at release time. Using this rule, there never has been _any_
> release from the fork while at the same time there have been 50 stable releases
> from the orignal software.

Ahh - but unknown bugs are fine... and I'd suggest that if you've done
50 releases since then, then you've had plenty of unknown bugs on the
way - using this metric, I don't believe that you've ever made a stable
release.

> > > fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> > > bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
> >
> > So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
> > you still have bugs. Well done.
>
> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
> unmodified source.

But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
*believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
bug reports with you...

> > > What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> > > disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
> >
> > Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
> > impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
> > yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
> > Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
> > don't qualify as a user. Sorry.
>
> Don't you read the bug reports? You seem to have missed the contact to the
> debian users.....
>
> > > If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> > > demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> > > person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> > > it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> > > credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
> >
> > Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
> > changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
> > http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
> > I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
> > incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.
>
> Single character spelling changes cannot count as active development.
>
> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?

I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking
at the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's
not a whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed
now that lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.

> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.

Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.

We are interested in our users, however, and as such that is why the
fork was created.

> Please note: I believe that there is no resaon for Debian to continue to
> support the person "Eduard Bloch". With his activities on cdrtools, he did harm
> the credibilty of Debian. As this person is no longer active since nearly two
> years, it should be the right time to stop arguing based on his attacks.

I think you'll find the current leader and release manager (and, infact,
DD in charge of) cdrkit is Joerg Jaspert - as can be clearly seen at the
bottom of www.cdrkit.org.

> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there is
> mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently work for
> Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform yourself based
> on neutral information instead of the attacks from this person. The next step
> would be to delete the incorrect claims and the slander from the Debian servers
> that have been written by this person.

We're not focusing on the "attacks" from that person - what we focus on
is being able to modify the source in appropriate ways - your changes to
the source (i.e. declaring parts of it unmodifiable, going against the
GPL) prevented us from actually being able to do our job.

> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/

No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.

> compile it and install it (the latter as root) by calling "make install".
> Then take the Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat buglist and test all the bugs against
> the original software. You will find that all documented problem disappear once
> you are using the original software (note that you may need to withdraw several
> changes to other software that have been introduced to let them call cdrkit
> instead of the original software).

Marvellous - unpackaged, non-security supported software - just what we
all *love* on our systems.

You'll find that I don't suffer from the "documented problems" as you
put them to start off with, so why should I risk using something else
that may or may not work, and might just install a root kit instead.

"Thanks",
--
Brett Parker


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

> Please don???t forward private replies to a public mailing list: this is
> very rude behavior.

Well, this is an open discussion and I see no reason not to share your rude
replies with others.....


> Le jeudi 26 fvrier 2009 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling a crit :
> > **************
> > If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
> > properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
> > **************
>
> The email you are replying to declares:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
> [snip]
> --=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is not true, your mail does not contain the content encoding type line you
claim.

My mail (the one you did reply to) on the other side is correct:

...
In-Reply-To: <1235654190.5228.47.camel@shizuru>
User-Agent: nail 11.22 3/20/05
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-Path: Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de

So please fix your mailer

> > If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
> > original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
> > has been broken and needs to be fixed.
>
> Indeed, the frontends have all been fixed, by calling wodim instead of
> cdrecord. And now they work as expected.

If you believe that breaking a frontend is a godd idea, then you should
not be a maintainer.


> > There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
> > software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.
>
> Please forward us such reports of people doing that successfully within
> Debian; this looks like a lot of fun. Not forgetting that distributing
> such solutions would violate the licensing of several of the frontends.

Please read the Debian bugtracking system for at least 70% of the typical well
known bugs in the fork...Note that you may need to check _all_ entries even
those declared as "closed" as many of them never have been fixed in the code.


> > > > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
> > >
> > > Show them. Come on.
> >
> > I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!
>
> Sorry, but simple reports are not convincing without analysis. Please
> show where the bugs come from, and explain why they don???t apply to
> cdrecord.

I recommend you to read the Debian bug tracking system. If you do not
understand the reports and their background, you do not seem have the
needed skills for a dicussion on the problems.

The bug reports in the Debian bug tracking system do not apply to cdrtools
because they either have been introduced by Eduard Bloch and thus never have
been in the original software or because they have been fixed years ago in the
original software but obviously not in the fork.

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 04:15 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Le jeudi 26 fvrier 2009 17:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a crit :
> > The email you are replying to declares:
> >
> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
> > [snip]
> > --=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> This is not true, your mail does not contain the content encoding type line you
> claim.

Are you actually contesting the contents of a PGP-signed email ?

Now *that* is very interesting.

> So please fix your mailer

There is nothing broken in my mailer; it conforms to RFC 1847 (Security
Multiparts for MIME). Yours does not.

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-26-2009, 05:06 PM
Kai Wasserbch
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

[WARNING: THIS MESSAGE IS PGP/MIME SIGNED, DON'T BLAME MY MUA ]

The only thing I remember is an ancient (2006) discussion on heise online (and
probably elsewhere too) [0] (German only, sorry) about this topic and all this
has been brought forward and not backed up by any proofs. Back then the last
reply was not to reply... could we please skip to that part. It's just not worth
the effort.

@all the DDs/DMs and all other contributors: please don't feed the troll.

Thanks,
Kai

[0] http://www.heise.de/open/news/foren/forum-104357/msg-11172557/read/


Joerg Schilling schrieb:
>> xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
>> Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
>> or something (apparently).
>
>> So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
>> or wodim?
>
> You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
> and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
>
> Just add cdrecord from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> and you get a legal and working system.
>
> Jrg



--

Kai Wasserbch (Kai Wasserbaech)

E-Mail: debian@carbon-project.org
Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt
URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden
GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2
(http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op =vindex)
 
Old 02-26-2009, 09:34 PM
John Goerzen
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Joerg Schilling wrote:

>
> The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
>
> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> legally distributed.

If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
do what it does.

If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
first place.

ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.

So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.

-- John


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org