Check media broken?

[Sandy Pond]

The check media at installation time fails, however, when I mount the
iso file in "-o loop" and run a "diff -r" between the iso file and
the
cdrom everything compares fine.

I'm going to try the install from the media anyhow.

[Jef Spaleta]

On 11/25/05, Sandy Pond <sandy_pond(a)myrealbox.com&gt; wrote:
>  The check media at installation time fails, however, when I mount
> the
>  iso file in "-o loop" and run a "diff -r" between the iso file and
> the
>  cdrom everything compares fine.
>
>  I'm going to try the install from the media anyhow. 

> From the release notes: 
The mediacheck function is highly sensitive, and may report some
 usable discs as faulty. This result is often caused by disc writing
 software that does not include padding when creating discs from ISO
  files. For best results with the mediacheck, boot with the option:

 linux ide=nodma

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:36:54PM -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>  >From the release notes:
>  
>  The mediacheck function is highly sensitive, and may report some
>   usable discs as faulty. This result is often caused by disc writing
>   software that does not include padding when creating discs from ISO
>    files. For best results with the mediacheck, boot with the option:
>  
>   linux ide=nodma 
With my IDE hat on on this advice is mostly junk. It may help by chance
in some cases. The fundamental underlying problem is in the core kernel code
and the maintainer of that part of the code won't even reply to emails about
it.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

> With my IDE hat on on this advice is mostly junk. It may help by
> chance
> in some cases. The fundamental underlying problem is in the core kernel code
> and the maintainer of that part of the code won't even reply to emails about
> it.
>   
>  
Ok. So what would be your advice for the potential workarounds that we 
can mention in the release notes?

regards
Rahul

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:42:03PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Ok. So what would be your advice for the potential workarounds that
> we 
>  can mention in the release notes? 
"Don't bother" would be my suggestion.