isoinfo inconsistent output

DBabo · 07-05-2010, 12:11 PM

i have 2 iso files.
the first i downloaded from net, the second was created by me. Both files have the same files. the only difference is the content in one of the files.
In other words:
1. i downloaded the 1.iso
2. mounted, cp -pr ./ ; vi ./<one of the file
3. mkisofs -o 2.iso.

Code:

mkisofs  -o 2.iso ./iso/
<skip>
 isoinfo -d -i ./2.iso 
CD-ROM is in ISO 9660 format
System id: LINUX
Volume id: CDROM
Volume set id: 
Publisher id: 
Data preparer id: 
Application id: MKISOFS ISO 9660/HFS FILESYSTEM BUILDER & CDRECORD CD-R/DVD CREATOR (C) 1993 E.YOUNGDALE (C) 1997 J.PEARSON/J.SCHILLING
Copyright File id: 
Abstract File id: 
Bibliographic File id: 
Volume set size is: 1
Volume set sequence number is: 1
Logical block size is: 2048
Volume size is: 138112
NO Joliet present
NO Rock Ridge present

isoinfo -l -i ./2.iso
<skip>
Directory listing of /V_2/RR/0103/BMWOCN/APP_SW/
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [     95 02]  . 
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [     94 02]  .. 
----------   0    0    0         3182904 May 23 2007 [  88223 00]  BSW2.;1 
----------   0    0    0          534560 May 23 2007 [  89778 00]  BSW_TOOL.;1 
----------   0    0    0         8401704 May 31 2007 [  90040 00]  NAVBOOT.;1 
----------   0    0    0          819704 May 23 2007 [  94143 00]  SSW_TOOL.;1 
----------   0    0    0          690504 Mar 18 2005 [  94544 00]  TESTBOOT.;1 
----------   0    0    0           12800 May 31 2007 [  94882 00]  TIOARCH.TAR;1 

mount -o loop ../OS/32v/mod/1.iso /media/iso/
ls -l /media/iso/v_2/rr/0103/bmwocn/app_sw/
total 13324
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 3182904 May 23  2007 bsw2
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root  534560 May 23  2007 bsw_tool
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 8401704 May 31  2007 navboot
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root  819704 May 23  2007 ssw_tool
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root  690504 Mar 18  2005 testboot
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root   12800 May 31  2007 tioarch.tar

at the same time for the original 1.iso :

Code:

 isoinfo -l -i ./1.iso 

Directory listing of /V_2/RR/0103/BMWOCN/app_sw/
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [  91849 02]  . 
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [  90421 02]  .. 
----------   0    0    0           12800 May 31 2007 [  91850 00]  tioarch.tar 
----------   0    0    0          534560 May 23 2007 [  91857 00]  bsw_tools 
----------   0    0    0          690504 Mar 18 2005 [  92119 00]  testboot 
----------   0    0    0          819704 May 23 2007 [  92457 00]  ssw_tools 
----------   0    0    0         3182904 May 23 2007 [  92858 00]  bsw2 
----------   0    0    0         8401704 May 31 2007 [  94413 00]  navboot 

isoinfo -d -i ../1.iso 
CD-ROM is in ISO 9660 format
System id: CARIN_SW_5259
Volume id: YYYYY
Volume set id: CARIN
Publisher id: YYYYYYY
Data preparer id: xxxxx
Application id: Wtz
Copyright File id: 
Abstract File id: 
Bibliographic File id: 
Volume set size is: 1
Volume set sequence number is: 1
Logical block size is: 2048
Volume size is: 128399
NO Joliet present
**BAD RRVERSION (0)
NO Rock Ridge present

the question i have why is the discrepancy in the output of "isoinfo" for 2 files?

unSpawn · 07-17-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

why is the discrepancy in the output of "isoinfo" for 2 files?

If you mean the ".;1" file names then that's written as conforming to ISO 9660 level 1 naming restrictions (8.3 format) vs level 2 (about 180 chars). If you mean the "**BAD RRVERSION (0)" then maybe try writing the .iso again with "-no-rr" (even thought that's kind of odd since it already says "NO Rock Ridge present").

//NTLB

DBabo · 07-18-2010, 08:27 PM

unspawn,
sorry about the delay in respone.
Here is the test cases i just did:

Code:

//usr/bin/usr/bin/mkisofs -no-rr -o test.iso ./iso/
<skipped>
Using USW_L000.;1 for  ./iso/mk2c/0101/bmw/app_sw/usw_load (usw_load_2)
Using USW_L000.;1 for  ./iso/mk2c/0110/bmw/app_sw/usw_load (usw_load_2)
Using USW_L000.;1 for  ./iso/mk2c/0201/bmw/app_sw/usw_load (usw_load_2)
  3.63% done, estimate finish Sun Jul 18 21:21:00 2010
  7.25% done, estimate finish Sun Jul 18 21:21:00 2010
<skipped>
 97.74% done, estimate finish Sun Jul 18 21:21:07 2010
Total translation table size: 0
Total rockridge attributes bytes: 0
Total directory bytes: 227328
Path table size(bytes): 1444
Max brk space used 64000
138122 extents written (269 MB)

/usr/bin/isoin/usr/bin/isoinfo -l -i ./test.isofo
<skipped>
Directory listing of /V_2/RR/0103/BMWOCN/APP_SW/
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [     95 02]  .
d---------   0    0    0            2048 Apr 22 2008 [     94 02]  ..
----------   0    0    0         3182904 May 23 2007 [  88223 00]  BSW2.;1
----------   0    0    0          534560 May 23 2007 [  89778 00]  BSW_TOOL.;1
----------   0    0    0         8401704 May 31 2007 [  90040 00]  NAVBOOT.;1
----------   0    0    0          819704 May 23 2007 [  94143 00]  SSW_TOOL.;1
----------   0    0    0          690504 Mar 18 2005 [  94544 00]  TESTBOOT.;1
----------   0    0    0           12800 May 31 2007 [  94882 00]  TIOARCH.TAR;1
$ /usr/bin/isoinfo -d -i ./test.iso
CD-ROM is in ISO 9660 format
System id: LINUX
Volume id: CDROM
Volume set id:
Publisher id:
Data preparer id:
Application id: MKISOFS ISO 9660/HFS FILESYSTEM BUILDER & CDRECORD CD-R/DVD CREATOR (C) 1993 E.YOUNGDALE           (C) 1997 J.PEARSON/J.SCHILLING
Copyright File id:
Abstract File id:
Bibliographic File id:
Volume set size is: 1
Volume set sequence number is: 1
Logical block size is: 2048
Volume size is: 138122
NO Joliet present
NO Rock Ridge present

still inconsistent - RR is not there, yet the downloaded file has the error (**BAD RRVERSION (0) ) and has names correctly dipslayed.
at the same time once mounted both files show identical filesnames.

Any thoughts?
Thank you.

unSpawn · 07-19-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

still inconsistent - RR is not there,

RR isn't used in the original either so is that a problem?..

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

yet the downloaded file has the error (**BAD RRVERSION (0) )

"BAD RRVERSION" is an error me thinks. Do you seek to produce faulty ISOs? ;-p

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

and has names correctly dipslayed.

LFN means level 2 (3, 4) as in 'mkisofs -iso-level'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

at the same time once mounted both files show identical filesnames.

Mount options make a difference IIRC, for instance mounting something as UDF may show different things compared to ISO9660.

DBabo · 07-19-2010, 04:55 PM

Is there a way to see the options used during the (original) file generation? Or its try-and-error approach only?

unSpawn · 07-19-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBabo

Is there a way to see the options used during the (original) file generation? Or its try-and-error approach only?

The resultant ISO is just a plain file system which doesn't have any defaults or extensions for storing that kind of information.

DBabo · 07-20-2010, 07:29 AM

Let's try different approach: how come I can mount the (orig) fs eventhou isovfy reports an error?
// not trying to be hard, just curious