[openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:59 +0100 CET
"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well, the one that comes with R5 just don't support multi-session
> > disks at all. And I *know* from the one I've written,
> Man, you did indeed write a multisession ISO9660 FS! I thought that
> was
> a joke of yours, recently! :-P :-)
> This guy is always good for a surprise. :-))
Hehe :-)
Of course, it was meant as a joke, but it even would have been funnier
when you knew about that already ;-P
> > that it has some
> > problems with some CDs - I happen to own such a thing :-)
> > (the AmigaOS 3.9 CD, if somebody cares :-))
> Have you analyzed the problem=3D3F
> I bet, it's just another unforeseeable standard deviation. Or even
> more
> confusing, standard compliance. ;-)
No, I haven't analyzed it at all - but my multi-session fs is really
"simple" in that regard: it just always using absolute addressing.
That works fine as long as there are not do independent ISO-9660
sessions on that disk, and I guess that's the case with it. Since I
would need to be able to differentiate between a multi-session, and a
single session, I was just too lazy to think about it, after scanning
through the standard :-)
(as it works for almost every disk)
Unfortunately, it even enters KDL with that CD, IIRC - so it's really
something that should be fixed.
Adios...
Axel.
- Follow-Ups:
- [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- References:
- [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: Ingo Weinhold
Other related posts:
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: Ingo Weinhold