Why not dvdrtools?
Why not dvdrtools?
Posted Sep 5, 2006 5:13 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753)Parent article: cdrkit: Debian's fork of cdrtools
I'm wondering why another fork. There was already dvdrtools.
Posted Sep 5, 2006 7:47 UTC (Tue)
by Zomb (guest, #23391)
[Link]
So it was finally the better compromise.
And then there are good and active alternatives which are going to replace cdrtools in the (mid-term) future: libburn/libisofs based apps, libcdio seems quite usefull as well and there is http://littlesvr.ca/isomaster/ which also looks promising.
Posted Sep 7, 2006 10:46 UTC (Thu)
by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link]
Because dvdrtools took off from an older version and has not received many updates/fixes since then but got some significant modifications to port it away from "Schilling-style". Previous Debian package already had dozens of fixes and extensions (many shared with other distros, after all), it would have been the hell porting them to dvdrtools and keeping the quality. Especially in the expected time period, Debian Stable has to be released by the end of the year.Why not dvdrtools?
Furthermore, dvdrtools forked from a version of cdrecord that was available under the GPL with the additional restriction that you may not alter or remove the FUD about Linux printed when cdrecord starts up. Debian currently have dvdrtools in non-free... I would have thought that this additional restriction makes the entire lot non-distributable, however.Why not dvdrtools?