Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at
Sun Sep 13 16:41:01 PDT 2009

Ken Moffat wrote:
>  People still use the original cdrtools ?
>  I got fed up trying to build cdrtools when I moved beyond Herr
> Schilling's supported architectures (neither pure64 nor multilib
> ppc64 were easy there),

I just tried it and the latest beta builds very easily with LFS-6.5 as a pure64 
version and also an older LFS on a P4.

>  and went for dvdrtools which is a fork
> from before cdrtools was relicensed.
>  Meanwhile, distros have been bitten by the license change
> (see e.g. the old summary at )
> and are using different things (typically, cdrkit/wodim).

That link doesn't work, but there is a brief overview on Wikipedia:

To get Shilling's view, see

He does come across as a bit pompus (He's right and everyone else is wrong), but 
I think the code is good.

>  The license change itself is not a problem for us, because we
> don't distribute binaries, but I think most modern distros only
> provide something called 'cdrecord' as a compatability symlink,
> and the underlying program is not cdrtools.
>  OTOH, perhaps recent versions of cdrtools are better on the
> supported architectures such as x86, and certainly I lost some
> speed autosensing improvements when I left the true cdrecord.
>   Or do you still get warning messages when you point it to what
> is supposedly a disk instead of the scsi triplet returned by scanbus
> (assuming, that is, that you don't have a real SCSI burner) ?.

Yes, there is a one line message
  Warning: Open by 'devname' is unintentional and not supported.

but it doesn't seem to affect anything.  The code worked properly with just:

sudo make INS_BASE=/usr DEFINSUSR=root DEFINSGRP=root install

We will need to move the doc files around a bit, but nothing functional.

   -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list