[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Libcdio-devel] Re: mmc_get_disc_erasable proposition + questions

From: Rocky Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] Re: mmc_get_disc_erasable proposition + questions
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:49:26 -0500

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Mario Đanić <address@hidden> wrote:

> > And at the same time, where folks want strict compliance for any given
> > standard they can get that too by using the specific library desired.
> >
> Sigh, that sounds like a bunch of libraries.

I don't see that the *number* part is a problem. Right now on my ubuntu
computer in /usr/lib  I have 351 shared libraries (.so's).  And if I do a
"ldd xine" I come up with 41. If the numbers were 355 or 45 that wouldn't
bother me at all.

Applications only need to use those libraries that are desired. The author
of the application is in a better position that me or libcdio to know how
much generality and compliance is desired.

It sounds like you wants to create a single all-encompasing library that has
might have loose compliance with anything but is very practical and can do
everything folks are likely to want to do in optical media, then that's the
one library your burning application might access.

On the other hand, suppose you are doing something strictly of a CD nature
and say only care about Red-Book CDs. Then although one could use the
everything hybrid library, I think I would tend to use the libcdio library.
If nothing else it would be stricter about ensuring that you come up with a
valid CD because that's all it *could* do.

>From my position, optical
> media recording scene is fragmented enough as-is, and one of the
> reasons behind Libburnia project is to unify efforts on "burning"
> matters on Linux, and then possibly other platforms.

So again, I think what you want is this hybrid loose compliance library for
burning. And the best way to make sure it happens is to "vote with your
feet" or do it.

So I'm just suggesting doing this separate from libcdio *library* which was
intended for CDs.  (It is open for discussion as to whether you want to do
this inside the libcdio *project* or outside. If there are internal parts of
libcdio that should be moved outside to help things along, that's okay.
We've discussed for example moving MMC outside by turning it into a library
which libcdio and perhaps libburnia use)

Personally I think doing this makes things much cleaner and easier to work
on. There is no backward compatibility to worry about. Furthermore one can
reassess any of the assumptions made in a more fundamental and radical way.

> Please excuse me for not participating enough in the discussions that
> are taking place lately on this list, but unfortunately I am without a
> computer as it is in the process of being repaired (for almost 4 weeks
> now, sigh), and have very sporadic access to one.

Sorry to hear.

> I will try to get up to speed as soon as my laptop is back, and in the
> mean time I'll read your discussions as I can.

I look forward to your thoughts and views. Thanks in advance for any help
you can give.

Quite frankly I do not consider myself an expert any of the things libcdio
purports to understand. As I wrote in the history section of libcdio
documentation, this started as my own personal and individual discomfort
with DMCA.

> Cheers,
> Mario

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]