On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:58 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >Every time I burn a CD I am presented with the following FUD: > > > cdrecord: Warning: Running on Linux-2.6.16-2-k7 > > cdrecord: There are unsettled issues with Linux-2.5 and newer. > > cdrecord: If you have unexpected problems, please try Linux-2.4 or Solaris. > > This is not FUD but important information. > > Note that Debian did not update cdrtools since 14 months and the Linux-2.6 > kernel series did introduce 2 incompatible interface changes (that are > important > to cdrtools) meanwhile. > > These incompatible interface changes cause a user level progam like cdrecord > to fail. > > Note that the message directs you to _stable_ systems. If it was missing, > many users would not know why they have problems...
Please back these claims up with references. I have seen similar statements from you in the past, but you never actually describe the changed interfaces, or provide a reason why cdrecord cannot be modified to take them into account. > >I think it is inappropriate for Debian to advertise the use of non-free > >operating systems such as Solaris. > > It is questionable whether the Linux Kernel you are running is free (it > violates the GPL), Cite please. If you really think this is true, please file a bug against the linux-2.6 package. > but Solaris is definitely free, so what? I assume you mean OpenSolaris here? As you know, it is distributed under the CDDL, which is not DFSG-free. Besides, the Freeness of Solaris is not germane to this discussion, unless someone creates a port of Debian to a gnu-ksolaris architecture. > >Furthermore, if Linux 2.4 is > >recommended over 2.6 then Debian should ship 2.4 as the default (I > >believe 2.4 is to be dropped from the Etch release entirely). > > It seems that you forgot that Linux-2.4 is the latest stable version. > All newer Linux kernel versions are in alpha/pre-alpha state "Stable" according to whom? Etch will ship 2.6.16; the only changes that will be made to the kernel packages (and all other packages) during Etch's lifecycle are those which fix security flaws and critical bugs. > >This message should also be removed: > > > Warning: Open by 'devname' is unintentional and not supported. > > Wrong: open by devname is not documented in the man page and undocumented > features may be removed without prior notice. You are incorrectly assuming that it is the job of the Debian maintainers to simply import new upstream releases, verbatim. This is not the case. It is the job of the Debian maintainers to integrate the package into Debian so that it works with the other packages present in the distribution. Since Etch will be released with the Linux 2.6.16 kernel, the maintainers know that the cdrecord package has to work with that kernel. Therefore they are not going to drop the one feature that makes it possible for Etch's cdrecord package to function! Besides, newer releases of cdrecord that may drop this interface will not make it into Debian anyway, since they are not DFSG-free. > rad the man page and follow the documentation... If I did this then I would be unable to burn CDs at all due to the issues I mentioned in my original bug report (which you neglected to quote when replying). > >While I'm at it, I would prefer that the marked lines of the following > >message should go as well: > > > Cdrecord-Clone 2.01.01a03 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2005 > > Joerg Schilling > >* NOTE: this version of cdrecord is an inofficial (modified) release of > >cdrecord > >* and thus may have bugs that are not present in the original version. > > Please send bug reports and support requests to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > >* The original author should not be bothered with problems of this > >version. > > > If Debian would remove this note, Debian would violate the "Urheberrecht". > Do you really like that Debian violates the law? I'm sorry, but I don't read German and so I don't know what this means. I do know that the version of cdrecord that Debian currently ships is made available under the GPL, which does allow the marked lines to be removed. If this is not the case then the package should be punted into non-free. In case you misunderstood my original statement: I am not requesting that the copyright notice be removed; I am merely requesting that the pointless messages that only serve to annoy our users should be removed. > The cdrecord from Debian not only "may have bugs" but definitely is known to > have > bugs that are not present in the original. Debian needs to inform their users > that they are not using the original..... Yadda yadda yadda. We have the bug tracking system to track bugs. Furthermore, Debian users *know* that Debian modifies the software that they ship; that's the *point* of creating a distribution. Such messages are not present in the other ~10,000 packages that Debian ships. > >Since bug reports filed with reportbug go to the Debian bug tracking > >system, the original author has no need to be bothered with them. > > Since your bugreport is full if false claims and annoys the "original > author", > it is obvious that I need to correct you.... As I stated in my original bug report, if you are annoyed by these bugs then don't waste your time trolling our BTS! > >(Also, 'inofficial' should be spelled 'unofficial') > > No, definitely not. > > My dictionary lists 'inofficial' before 'unofficial' and a native speaker from > London did tell me that 'inofficial' is OK. Are you not a native speaker? Nonsense, it is not present in either my Oxford or Collins dictionaries. I searching for it on Google and gathered the impression that that it is mainly used by (German) non-native speakers. > Jörg -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078
