[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Libcdio-devel] Re: Recent libcdio breakage fixed I think. Please te

From: Rocky Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] Re: Recent libcdio breakage fixed I think. Please test.
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:45:53 -0500

An automake version number has been dropped following the recommendation
from the automake-1.11 doc section 6.4.1 on AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE. I assume this
will work with version 1.9. If not, see below.

The exact wording of message in the sample programs isn't terribly important
because the use here is not intended as a final polished program, but rather
for programmers to study and build on. That said, if you feel you can do
better while keeping things relatively simple, by all means suggest a patch.
The specific profile message containing "capable"  comes from
mmc_feature_profile2str which I think I got from one of the MMC drafts. It
is possible many of those profile strings should be revised.

The missing externals in libcdio.sym have been added. I have now checked
that the source tarball should be able to build in a sandbox.  Manual pages
in the src directory are generated by help2man. The tarball however contains
some version for folks like you.

Since building libcdio from git has always seemed to pose a challenge for
you, I have put a tarball at

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Thomas Schmitt <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi,
> > I think Thomas' tests work as they should,
> > Thomas, you should verify this.
> I have to confess that i did not further follow
> the fate of the MMC_RDWR_EXCL tests.
> That's mainly because libburn uses only a
> few libcdio functions for drive enumeration,
> drive aquiration, SCSI address retrieval,
> and MMC command execution.
> I brought my local libcdio copy to the newest
> state.
> Not easy. See requests at the end of this mail.
> I made a completely new git clone into an
> empty directory
>  git clone git://
> The autotools requirement has changed from
> to
> and now i get from  ./
>  Rebuilding ./configure with autoreconf...
> require Automake 1.10, but have 1.9.6
>  autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
>  autoreconf: cannot empty /tmp/arx13039 (/tmp/arx13039/am4tX13698): Is a
> directory
>  autoreconf failed
> Is that demand for 1.10 really necessary ?
> Well, i can try myself
> ... seems to work.
> Up to
>  make[3]: *** No rule to make target `cd-drive.1', needed by `all-am'.
>  Stop.
> That is not a autotools problem but rather
> a known obstacle with libcdio git clones.
> Solvable by exploiting the release tarball
>  cp ../../libcdio-0.82/src/*.1 src/
> Then i bonk on
>  mmc1.o: In function `main':
>  .../example/mmc1.c:86: undefined reference to `mmc_get_disc_erasable'
> The function exists in
>  lib/driver/mmc/mmc.c
> But is not found by the linker.
> I know this effect already :))
> The function is not listed in
>  lib/driver/libcdio.sym
> The same with
>  mmc_get_disctype
> Ok, now it builds.
> Where are the MMC_RDWR tests ?
> (Will search after breakfast.)
> Preliminary test of
>  example/mmc1
> runs.
> One should issue better messages on empty tray,
> though:
>  Can't determine if disc is erasable.
>  disc type: profile is The Logical Unit does not conform to any Profile
> (0xFFFF)
> With media it seems ok, although i have problems
> to make sense of the word "capable" here:
>  Disc is erasable.
>  disc type: profile is CD-RW Re-writable Compact Disc capable (0xA)
> -----------------------------------------------
> Change requests:
> - Allow autotools 1.9, please.
>  I cannot simply upgrade autotools on my
>  workstation because the machine is owned by my
>  employer. I may use it for own development but
>  its system components may only be loaded from
>  the SuSE DVDs.
>  Regrettably, autotools was classified as system
>  component, when we last adjusted the agreement.
>  I simply don't know how to install it in a
>  sandbox.
> - Add the missing function names
>    mmc_get_disc_erasable
>    mmc_get_disctype
>  to
>    lib/driver/libcdio.sym
> - Do something about the missing man page files
>    src/*.1
>  Shall they get generated ? From what ?
>  Consider to generate them locally and to put
>  them into git.
> Have a nice day :)
> Thomas

reply via email to

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