Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress

"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
[...] 
> Mmh, that doesn't sound like something I like. If I understand you 
> correctly, the file system needs to access other sessions than the 
> one 
> passed to it.

Exactly, that's what the term multi-session is about! Generally, the 
file system uses absolute (and not session relative) block numbers for 
multi-session volumes.

[...]
> Can you please elaborate a bit more on this -- best starting with the 
> terminology. E.g. what is a volume=3F Is it a session, a track or a 
> partition=3F What is the volume set identifier -- a string, an int=3F 
> What 
> about the chronological order of the volumes on disk -- is it implied 
> (by the order of appearance) or explicit (time stamp)=3F When should a 
> session, volume or volume set (or whatever) be invisible for the 
> user, 
> i.e. is the session,... burned latest always the only one visible, 
> or, 
> if not in general, under what circumstances=3F ...=3F
> 
> To save you some time, maybe it's better, if you sent a link. As you 
> like... :-)
> 
> I really want to understand the problem completely first.

Yes, please, I am also not that firm on that topic either (no no, I 
haven't patched the iso9660 driver to support multi-session devices... 
;-))

Adios...
   Axel.