| 1 |
On 27 September 2005 17:18, Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs schreef: |
| 3 |
> > As I said, it doesn't seem like it's misinterpreting from the output |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Actually, it seems to me that it is, from the output: |
| 6 |
> > Track 01: 4444 of 4444 MB written (fifo 100%). Track 01: Total bytes |
| 7 |
> > read/written: 4660250624/4660250624 (2275513 sectors). Writing time: |
| 8 |
> > 101.814s Fixating... WARNING: Some drives don't like fixation in |
| 9 |
> > dummy mode. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The output definitely seems to indicate that cdrecord thinks that it is |
| 12 |
> meant to be in dummy mode-- but this is probably not a |
| 13 |
> 'misinterpretation', since two people have already pointed out syntax |
| 14 |
> errors that are probably stimulating cdrecord to resort to a fallback |
| 15 |
> position (dummy mode, to avoid damage to the device or waste of media, |
| 16 |
> since the program is not quite sure from the incorrect syntax precisely |
| 17 |
> what you want it to do). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I actually tried it out with the syntax errors because they made me curious as |
| 20 |
well. Well, cdrecord burnt the CD. So I really think it something else that |
| 21 |
tricks cdrecord into dummy mode. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Uwe |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software |
| 27 |
developers. - Linus Torvalds |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives