Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
support?
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
|
| Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
| W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
| support?
You did try to search for it, right?
http://www.elis.rug.ac.be/~ronsse/cdfs/
<plug>
Some other Linux fs-es:
http://www.xenotime.net/linux/linux-fs.html
</plug>
--
~Randy
"You can't do anything without having to do something else first."
-- Belefant's Law
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> |
> | Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> | W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> | support?
>
> You did try to search for it, right?
>
Sure did and what I get was an explaination that, for
Linux, the letters "CDFS" refer to something that "exports
all the tracks and boot images of a CD as normal files".
That's not what I want. I want to mount a CDFS file-system.
Given that, maybe the explaination is bogus, but I
need some CDFS file-system support so I can mount
a Microsoft CDFS CD/ROM. If such support exists, I
would think that I should be able to do:
mount -t cdfs /dev/cdrom /mnt
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> support?
What's on the CD?
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > |
> > | Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> > | W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> > | support?
> >
> > You did try to search for it, right?
> >
>
> Sure did and what I get was an explaination that, for
> Linux, the letters "CDFS" refer to something that "exports
> all the tracks and boot images of a CD as normal files".
>
> That's not what I want. I want to mount a CDFS file-system.
>
> Given that, maybe the explaination is bogus, but I
> need some CDFS file-system support so I can mount
> a Microsoft CDFS CD/ROM. If such support exists, I
> would think that I should be able to do:
>
> mount -t cdfs /dev/cdrom /mnt
Unless something has changed seriously in just a few years, the name CDFS
was always just a Microsoft synonym for the proper name iso9660. The Linux
name CDFS is the filesystem which Randy pointed you at, for mounting
multi-session CDs and accessing individual sessions as files (iso images).
So, if you have what Microsoft calls CDFS then it is simply iso9660 and if
it doesn't mount then either your CD is damaged (and you only get a false
"impression" of it working in Windows) or there is a bug in Linux iso9660
implementation. What are the error messages you get when you try to mount
it as an iso9660?
(You didn't forget to compile Joliet and RR extensions into your kernel,
did you?)
Kind regards
Tigran
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> <plug>
> Some other Linux fs-es:
> http://www.xenotime.net/linux/linux-fs.html
<plug mode="another">
Nice list, maybe you can also add xip2fs (http://linuxvm.org/Patches/).
</plug>
> </plug>
Arnd <><
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> > W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> > support?
>
> What's on the CD?
>
Some source-code written on a M$ machine and then burned into
the CD. I can do `od /dev/cdrom` and read it. I just can't
mount it. One responder said it may have a UDF file-system
on it. I am building a module as I write. Thanks.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > |
> > > | Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> > > | W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> > > | support?
> > >
> > > You did try to search for it, right?
> > >
> >
> > Sure did and what I get was an explaination that, for
> > Linux, the letters "CDFS" refer to something that "exports
> > all the tracks and boot images of a CD as normal files".
> >
> > That's not what I want. I want to mount a CDFS file-system.
> >
> > Given that, maybe the explaination is bogus, but I
> > need some CDFS file-system support so I can mount
> > a Microsoft CDFS CD/ROM. If such support exists, I
> > would think that I should be able to do:
> >
> > mount -t cdfs /dev/cdrom /mnt
>
> Unless something has changed seriously in just a few years, the name CDFS
> was always just a Microsoft synonym for the proper name iso9660. The Linux
> name CDFS is the filesystem which Randy pointed you at, for mounting
> multi-session CDs and accessing individual sessions as files (iso images).
>
Mounting it as an iso9660 fs doesn't work.
> So, if you have what Microsoft calls CDFS then it is simply iso9660 and if
> it doesn't mount then either your CD is damaged (and you only get a false
> "impression" of it working in Windows) or there is a bug in Linux iso9660
> implementation. What are the error messages you get when you try to mount
> it as an iso9660?
Script started on Fri Mar 19 12:01:38 2004
# umount /mnt
# umount /mnt
umount: /mnt: not mounted
# umount -t iso9660 /dev/cdrom /mnt
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/cdrom,
or too many mounted file systems
# exit
Script done on Fri Mar 19 12:04:49 2004
>
> (You didn't forget to compile Joliet and RR extensions into your kernel,
> did you?)
Nope.
>
> Kind regards
> Tigran
>
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:01, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> support?
AFAICT, in Windows CDFS == ISO-9660, nothing more, nothing less.
However, CDFS.SYS from Windows does have support for propietary Romeo
and Jouliet extensions, which maybe are the culprit of the problem.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:01, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Just got a CD/ROM that 'works' on W$, but not Linux.
> > W$ `properties` call it 'CDFS'. Is there any such Linux
> > support?
>
> AFAICT, in Windows CDFS == ISO-9660, nothing more, nothing less.
> However, CDFS.SYS from Windows does have support for propietary Romeo
> and Jouliet extensions, which maybe are the culprit of the problem.
>
Well I just compiled in a module for UDF file-system since somebody
said it could be UDF on the CD instead of ISO-9660. In the process
of re-booting (nothing else), the CD decided to be mountable.
This doesn't make any sense because once the M$ CD wouldn't mount
I tried other ISO-9660 CDS and they mounted fine. I do backups
using ISO-9660 with the Joliet extensions as well. Anyway, I
could read the M$ CD using `od` as well.
So, all I did was re-boot (just like Windows) and it mounted fine.
Maybe there's somebody working on Linux that used to work for
M$, so it got infected with the Windows syndrome?
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
Hi.
> Script started on Fri Mar 19 12:01:38 2004
> # umount /mnt
> # umount /mnt
> umount: /mnt: not mounted
> # umount -t iso9660 /dev/cdrom /mnt
^^^^^^^^
use "mount" instead of "umount" to mount something.
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/cdrom,
> or too many mounted file systems
> # exit
> Script done on Fri Mar 19 12:04:49 2004
// Stefan
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
> > Script started on Fri Mar 19 12:01:38 2004
> > # umount /mnt
> > # umount /mnt
> > umount: /mnt: not mounted
> > # umount -t iso9660 /dev/cdrom /mnt
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> use "mount" instead of "umount" to mount something.
>
I did. Note that `mount` replies below. I don't know why there
is a 'u' in the echo...
vvv------
> > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/cdrom,
> > or too many mounted file systems
> > # exit
> > Script done on Fri Mar 19 12:04:49 2004
>
> // Stefan
>
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
"Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> > Script started on Fri Mar 19 12:01:38 2004
>> > # umount /mnt
>> > # umount /mnt
>> > umount: /mnt: not mounted
>> > # umount -t iso9660 /dev/cdrom /mnt
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> use "mount" instead of "umount" to mount something.
>>
>
> I did. Note that `mount` replies below. I don't know why there
> is a 'u' in the echo...
Maybe it's related to the backspace at the end of the line.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
| Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:37 +0100
| From: Arnd Bergmann
|
|
| On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| > <plug>
| > Some other Linux fs-es:
| > http://www.xenotime.net/linux/linux-fs.html
|
| <plug mode="another">
| Nice list, maybe you can also add xip2fs (http://linuxvm.org/Patches/).
| </plug>
|
| > </plug>
OK, updated.
Thanks,
--
~Randy