Beginning a few days ago, my install of cdrecord-prodvd always fails its license check. If I roll back my system date to Jan 4, 2006, it works. I am using the latest cdrecord-wrapper.sh and have tried the version from the distribution site. Both claim the key is good until June 11, 2006. I note from the README at ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/README: If you get an "Alarm clock" abort from cdrecord-ProDVD, then you are experiencing license problems. Possible reasons are: - You are using a Alpha binary that is more than a year old. Note that cdrecord-ProDVD binaries that contain the letter 'a' in the version string will stop working one year after the day of the creation of the binary. Also, checking the version $ cdrecord-prodvd-2.01.01-i686-pc-linux-gnu -version Cdrecord-ProDVD-Clone 2.01.01a01 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 J
Beginning a few days ago, my install of cdrecord-prodvd always fails its license check. If I roll back my system date to Jan 4, 2006, it works. I am using the latest cdrecord-wrapper.sh and have tried the version from the distribution site. Both claim the key is good until June 11, 2006. I note from the README at ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/README: If you get an "Alarm clock" abort from cdrecord-ProDVD, then you are experiencing license problems. Possible reasons are: - You are using a Alpha binary that is more than a year old. Note that cdrecord-ProDVD binaries that contain the letter 'a' in the version string will stop working one year after the day of the creation of the binary. Also, checking the version $ cdrecord-prodvd-2.01.01-i686-pc-linux-gnu -version Cdrecord-ProDVD-Clone 2.01.01a01 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 Jörg Schilling Unlocked features: Limited features: cdrecord-prodvd-2.01.01-i686-pc-linux-gnu: Warning: Running on Linux-2.6.11-gentoo-r6 cdrecord-prodvd-2.01.01-i686-pc-linux-gnu: There are unsettled issues with Linux-2.5 and newer. cdrecord-prodvd-2.01.01-i686-pc-linux-gnu: If you have unexpected problems, please try Linux-2.4 or Solaris. I've tried downloading 2.01.01 from the distrib site, which isn't labelled alpha, but it returns the a01 string when version is called. Not sure what exactly's up. Perhaps the warnings about linux 2.6 are involved? From the readme 2.0.1 is required for DVD/RW support. Maybe 2.01.01 is alpha, but 2.0.1 is good? I have tried cdrecord-prodvd-2.0.1-i586-pc-linux-gnu which gets past the alarm clock but claims it is limited functionality: cdrecord-prodvd-2.0.1-i586-pc-linux-gnu: This version of cdrecord limits DVD-R/DVD-RW support to -dummy or 1 GB real. cdrecord-prodvd-2.0.1-i586-pc-linux-gnu: If you need full DVD-R/DVD-RW support, ask the Author for cdrecord-ProDVD.
i updated a few months back the wrapper and if you read it you'll see: Key Expires ---> 2006 Jun 11 06:26:40 alpha version seems the best atm. This seems to me an upstream problem try to report this to upstream and see what they say.
I see your note about the key, but did you read my whole message? Alpha versions are only good 1 year from their build date. The alpha that the ebuild installs expired on 1/5/2006. Does it currently work for you? If so, I'd like to know how you configured it.
I agree with the original bug reporter's description. I ran into the same problem a few days ago and after some investigation, came to the exact same conclusion. I had to set the date back just to burn DVDs then set it back to present date. Ugly workaround, but not much choice right now. There is no word from the upstream maintainer as to when a newer alpha or non-alpha version might be released for Linux, unfortunately. It *might* be coming soon; he just uploaded updated binaries to the official cdrecord-ProDVD FTP site for Solaris and Cygwin. I don't think he's as fond of Linux, so it might be a while more. :-)
i don't use prodvd but there's nothing i can do except probably remove the package. The upstream didn't release any files and this is outdated. So you have to complain to upstream not to us.
Ok there's a new version and it's on portage this is now fixed
*** Bug 120928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
