On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > El s??b, 09-10-2004 a las 00:04 -0500, Branden Robinson escribi??:
> > It's time to fork. Let us work with the rest of the community to > > standardize on a new set of tools based on the last free version of > > cdrtools, thank Mr. Schilling for his valuable contributions, and leave him > > be to pursue his interests in proprietary software without interference > > or argument from us. He appears to regard placing his work under the plain > > vanilla GNU GPL that works for so many projects as an act that he cannot > > perform in good conscience. Let us stop placing him in that uncomfortable > > position. > > I agree with you. And I guess that the "good" direction would be > pushing libburn, which seems a bit stalled right now. Also, DVD[-R[W], > +R[W]] support should be added to it. On top of that library, it would > be easier to build command line and GUI oriented programs, which could > drop at that moment cdrecord. I wrote about this only a few days ago in a brief piece which was included in planet.d.o. At the time I was directed very quickly towards libburn. Using a library seems a lot saner than taking over any of the cdrecord codebase. If necessary a command line wrapper around the library could emulate the cdrecord command line options. I couldn't gain access to the libburn CVS repository, but I did download the .0.2 version and the test code worked for me. I was able to burn an image using it fairly quickly, although I can't say how stable the code is generally. (The API documentation was nice). > But what is needed there is people with time and access to different > drives. Perhaps people behind dvd+rw-tools could be interested, and some > company out there could sponsor this piece of software. I think a few individuals would be happy to host the code and work on it, but hardward testing really is the stumbling block - as is portability testing. > The problem with cdrecord is that it works, and though there are some > glitches that people would like to see fixed, writing another different > tool is only that: rewriting. And using the same language, i.e. there is > no perl vs. python, perl vs. php, ... It does seem a little tedious reimplimenting code which already exists, and mostly works. This either suggests: 1) It isn't worth doing, and we just put up with the maintainer. 2) It shuld be done in a better way (library based?) 3) Forking a free-er/older version. Given the vehemence of J?rg to SuSE and the other people "illegally distributing inofficial versions (sic)" I strongly suggest option 3 is not a good idea - if nothign else it will lead to confusion amongst users. Perhaps having a Debian package of libburn would be a good starting point - then popular programs can be patched to work with it? Steve --
pgpqWvt3Dw3xh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
