On 11 Feb 2003, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Sean Davis <dive@endersgame.net> writes:
> > So since the 'majority' will be using cd0, the minority gets ignored
> > and has to go out of their way to fix it?
>
> Right now, the thing points at nothing sane.
>
> With Simon's patch, it will point at something reasonable.
>
> Lets not put in Simon's patch, then, because it is obviously superior
> to have things utterly screwed up.
>
> > why can't there be an mk.conf define for default
> > cdrom device, and if it's not defined, *THEN* default to cd0?

That's a bit much, since you can enter a device in the gui, and almost
anything reasonable works (/dev/cd0a, /dev/rcd0d, and so on).

> Because people are supposed to download binary packages and thus don't
> have mk.conf impacting their defaults in their binaries?
>
> However, I have no objections to an mk.conf variable IN ADDITION to
> simon's patch, which overrides the default CD device, if YOU are
> willing to write the code to do it. Simon should not be stopped from
> committing his code, though. His code is strictly better than what we
> have now.

Fine with me then.

I really wouldn't mind if a /dev/cdrom symlink were the *BSD standard
default for cdda and cddb, but as there are strong objections just in
this little forum, I can see that's not likely to happen. It's too bad
cdparanoia's libraries have no documentation whatsoever, as that would
be the proper place to set the standards.

Frederick