[ Yawn; responding to this against my better judgement... ] On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> > 28_cdda2wav_interface.dpatch Patch with unclear target.... >> > People should rather educated by Debian >> > how to correctly specify dev= arguments >> > for libscg >> >> The original cdda2wav did not force its users to use special syntax, >> alienating the usual device access method via /dev/* files. From my POV >> the patch restores the compatibility that you have broken a while ago. > >This is of course complete nonsense. Please educate yourself by reading >the cdda2wav man page. > >The behavior we are talking about has been introduced more than 6 years >ago while starting to implement proper DAE support that is not limited by >kernel quality.
Yes, and this patch allows people to use the SCSI DAE support without having to specify devices using b,t,l. Which makes it more consistent with cdrecord. >> > 33_extra_arch_boot_support.dpatch Introducing this code would cause a lot >> > of testing in order to maintain >> > quality.... >> >> Yes, ... and? IMO Steve has enough skills to maintain it. > >If Steve has the needed skills, why is he unable to have a decent >fact based conversation? > >We did have this discussion already in January or Februaray and Steve did >write >a lot of wrong things. After I did ask him to prove his claims, he did not >reply anymore. "a lot of wrong things" on planet Schily maybe. I stopped responding to you because it was a fruitless conversation. As apparently is any conversation where people don't just agree with you... >I am willing to integrate useful things as long as they follow some rules. >See: > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING > >for more information Yes, and I tried to do that in July 2004, see Debian bug#259344. On the 19th July 2004 I submitted a reformatted patch to you with all of your stated requirements met. On the 22nd July in private mail to you (message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I asked again if you'd had time to look into the patch any further. I never had any reply from you to either of those emails, so I gave up. >> > 34_JTE.dpatch Looks like something that >> > breaks >> > mkisofs >> >> There is no smoke, no core file, so I cannot see anything breaking. > >In case this would make sense for integration, there would be sufficient >documentation and white papers as well as code review.... > >The current code definitely violates §5 and §6 from: > >ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING And, as also described back in July 2004 - I don't expect you to integrate this patch. Its use is Debian specific. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
