From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EFD3EA4D for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9QC37N24887 for blinux-list@listman.redhat.com; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:03:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g9QC36f24883 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:03:06 -0400 Received: from dc.cis.okstate.edu (dc.cis.okstate.edu [139.78.100.219]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g9QBfRw09791 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:41:28 -0400 Received: from dc.cis.okstate.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dc.cis.okstate.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9QC35G02496 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:03:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from martin@dc.cis.okstate.edu) Message-Id: <200210261203.g9QC35G02496@dc.cis.okstate.edu> To: blinux-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Sony cd writer problem (Martin) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:03:05 -0500 From: Martin McCormick X-Loop: blinux-list@redhat.com Sender: blinux-list-admin@redhat.com Errors-To: blinux-list-admin@redhat.com X-BeenThere: blinux-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: blinux-list@redhat.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux for blind general discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: "Willem van der Walt" writes: >What does some thing like >eject /dev/scd0 >produce? Does it open the drive or complain about the device? Actually, neither. It complains about the eject command. /dev/scd0 is known by the system and works fine at least when I am mounting a CDROM for reading. Before using the SCSI emulation, this device was /dev/cdrom so that behavior is exactly as it should be. This is the darndest problem I have come across yet. If I type mount /dev/scd0 /mnt I can read the disk as if it was a SCSI device. I don't know what else to try. By the way, my utmost thanks to everybody who has had a suggestion. I think I have either done something very odd in the setup or kernel building process or we have a bug of some kind. This just doesn't add up.