On 02/02/06 12:17:09PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Jim Crilly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Every other method to access those devices uses the device name, i.e.
> > mount, fsck, etc, so why should cdrecord be different?
>
> inadequateness on Linux did force libscg to go this way.
>
And inadequacies are what's causing libscg and 'cdrecord -scanbus' to fail
to list all IDE devices on Linux. Unless the comments about it stopping the
scan after getting -EPERM on one device are wrong.
> The current method used by libscg is well established since 10 years.
So? Change isn't always a bad thing.
> Now Linux likes to confuse people by trying to enforce a completely
> incompatible access method.
>From my point of view it's cdrecord that's confusing Linux users by trying
to force a completely different device naming method on users for no good
reason.
> Note that I need to avoid unneeded efforts and for this reason, I need to wait
> 5 years until is is forseable that a recent incompatible change in Linux will
> survive long enough to spent time on it.
I could be wrong, but don't all of the other OSes that cdrecord and
libscg support access the device via the device node? When I mount
a device on Solaris I use /dev/c0t0d0s0 (or whatever it is)and not
0:0:0, right? So it would be safe to assume that users are used to
using that form of names for their devices, so why should cdrecord
be the odd man out?
Jim.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
