Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress

> 
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
> > What I think this means for us is that (barring further 
> > discoveries) 
> > we 
> > can't completely know which volumes form a set without parsing the 
> > whole filesystem to look for references to othjer sessions, and 
> > even 
> > that fails in the event that all the files in the volume are 
> > updated.
> 
> That might be right, yes. Anyway, how does one differentiate between 
> a 
> session of a multi-session volume, and a single session=3F AFAIK, the 
> single session uses session dependent block addressing, not global 
> one 
> like the multi-sessions.
> So we at least need a reliable way to differentiate between both.

If I interpret the standard correctly -- and in practice the 
implementation haven't agreed on violating it -- it is easily possible 
to decide, which volumes belong to a volume set. Moreover, I believe, 
all volumes belong to a volume set -- individual volumes, that appear 
not to, simply live in a one element volume set then.

CU, Ingo