| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:43:11 -0400 |
| 3 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Just curious, but why? There's no need for ide-scsi in most cases. |
| 6 |
> There are probably quite a few people whom are using ide-scsi when the |
| 7 |
> ATAPI interface works perfectly fine. Is ide-scsi a requirement of |
| 8 |
> this |
| 9 |
> ebuild or is it simply "a working burning setup"? I'm just curious |
| 10 |
> before I go testing, since my machines either have a) SCSI burners, or |
| 11 |
> b) use ATAPI perfectly. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Actually because cd-burner frontends do not understand the ATAPI |
| 16 |
interface yet. of course, patching theese to be the perfect companion |
| 17 |
and work all over the place is just the "correct idea" to solve every |
| 18 |
magic problem. I don't have time, effort, or the incentive to take the |
| 19 |
support for each and every cdrw frontend there is in portage. You are of |
| 20 |
course welcome to do so though. :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So, basically its the "this works decently" and something that lets |
| 23 |
cdburner frontends work. ofc, if cdrecord -scanbus would actually work |
| 24 |
on detecting ATAPI interface things would probably be better. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
about scsi cdrw, I cannot speak. can you check that the build works, |
| 28 |
doesn't fuck it over, and works, and suggest changes if this isn't the |
| 29 |
case? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
begin .signature |
| 39 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 40 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 41 |
end |
Archives