Subject: Re: cd9660 bugs?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Wolfgang Solfrank <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/11/1996 19:48:07
> Yep, sure. But it should at least take regard to new versions as well.
> At first it should use the most recent version of the standard, then
> it might fall back to an older version. This can - if my reading of
> the source is correct - easily be achieved: Instead of only seeking the -
> obsolete - RRIP Flag "RR", it should seek for _all_ existing fields. This
> must work even if "RR" is not present.
Note that the code in the tree DOES look "for _all_ existing fields".
The RR field was always optional, and the code only uses it to short circuit
the search for other fields if it actually _finds_ an RR field indicating that
fields currently searched for are not there.
Anyway, I'm already discussing this with Markus privately (and there IS a
problem with CDs that conform to the newer specification, albeit not with the
ws@TooLs.DE (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) +49-228-985800