Web lists-archives.com

Re: How to react on a factually wrong Debian wiki change ?


i wrote:
> > So how should the statement be improved ?
> > ["wodim should better not be used with DVD or BD media."]

Curt wrote:
> You could say:
>  It is preferable not to use wodim for DVD or BD media.
> Or
>  It's better to avoid using wodim when burning to DVD or BD media.
> Or
>  Wodim has proved less reliable when used with DVD or BD media and is
>  best avoided when burning to those media.

Number 1 and 2 would bear content equivalent to mine.

Number 3 is inaccurate, because wodim works with some media types in
some situations reliably. It fails at other occasions reliably.

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> I'm fond of:
>   wodim should not be used.
> Although that may be too strong.  Maybe keep that "with DVD/BD media" bit
> on the end. ;-)

Then it would be

  wodim should not be used with DVD/BD media

and thus quite similar to the current wording.

I had chosen the current wording in order not to badmouth wodim, which
still is needed for some exotic CD use cases (CD-XA, data-audio mixed mode,
"raw" burning modes, ...).

My libburn does pure data CD or pure audio CD. For all other use cases
i lack examples and test users.

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> cdrkit is definitely now EOL, and I don't use it
> myself for writing DVD or BD media.

Thanks a lot for this clarification. Your message
will serve me as evidence to defend my position at future occasions.


So as question to native speakers of english language:

How to express in a concise sentence the fact that users of wodim
will be on their own if anything goes wrong on DVD or BD ?

Please read the whole section
to get the context. The sentence in question is near the section's end.

It seems not necessary for the purpose of the wiki page to give much
reason or detail for the advise to restrict wodim usage to CDs.
The residual use cases are not in the scope of the wiki article for
quite the same reasons why they are not supported by libburn.

Have a nice day :)