Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress

"Axel D=F6rfler"  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. :-))
> 
> Hehe :-)
> Of course, it was meant as a joke, but it even would have been 
> funnier 
> when you knew about that already ;-P

Indeed. :-)

> > > 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=3D3D3F
> > I bet, it's just another unforeseeable standard deviation. Or even 
> > more 
> > confusing, standard compliance. ;-)
> 
> No, I haven't analyzed it at all - but my multi-session fs is really 
> "simple" in that regard: it just always using absolute addressing.
> That works fine as long as there are not do independent ISO-9660 
> sessions on that disk, and I guess that's the case with it. Since I 
> would need to be able to differentiate between a multi-session, and a 
> single session, I was just too lazy to think about it, after scanning 
> through the standard :-)
> (as it works for almost every disk)

I wonder, if that disk is perhaps indeed standard compliant. That would 
at least explain, why it fails when being accessed with (non-standard) 
absolute addressing.

> Unfortunately, it even enters KDL with that CD, IIRC - so it's really 
> something that should be fixed.

I would be interested to have a look at it. Maybe you want to bring it 
to the next BeGeistert=3F!

CU, Ingo