Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress

"Axel D=F6rfler"  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> > > What concerns me more, is the CD-absolute addressing. Our ISO9660 
> > > FS
> > > would need to recognize the CD as an ill-formatted one and use 
> > > absolute
> > > addresses in this case, while for standard conformant ones the 
> > > correct
> > > addressing would be used. I think, that should be feasible at 
> > > least.
> > Well, as best I can tell, the one I'm using currently has no 
> > problem 
> > with any of the CDs I've thrown at it (though I haven't tested 
> > exhaustively), and I thought we got that one for free, as it comes 
> > in 
> > the R5 sample code.
> 
> Well, the one that comes with R5 just don't support multi-session 
> disks 
> at all. And I *know* from the one I've written,

Man, you did indeed write a multisession ISO9660 FS! I thought that was 
a joke of yours, recently! :-P :-)
This guy is always good for a surprise. :-))

> that it has some 
> problems with some CDs - I happen to own such a thing :-)
> (the AmigaOS 3.9 CD, if somebody cares :-))

Have you analyzed the problem=3F
I bet, it's just another unforeseeable standard deviation. Or even more 
confusing, standard compliance. ;-)

CU, Ingo