>>> A reasonable compromise might be to include the dev node
>>> name at the end of the mount point in brackets, i.e. "/media/My CD
>>> Label
>>> (sr0)".  Once we know how HAL handles this corner case via your test I
>>> can
>>> try to duplicate its behaviour as much as possible.
>>
>> I tested this on a 3.5.10 system with the DVD and CD drives. Both disks
>> had the same volume label. There were no problems. The mount point names
>> were handled in the same manner as reported earlier with using default
>> mount names of disk, disk-1, etc. with USB flash drives. In this case, I
>> ended up with the first disk being mounted at "/media/Slackware
>> Install1"
>> and the second disk being mounted at "/media/Slackware Install1-1."
>>
>> Using volume labels does not result in a mount point naming conflict or
>> mindless loop.
>>
>> I repeated the test on the same machine using an older GIT version of
>> TDE.
>> Of course, like the 3.5.10 system, that set of packages were built with
>> HAL rather than TDEHW support. The mount results were the same.
>>
>> I see you committed some patches, but I will need a couple of days to
>> test
>> TDEHW on the dual optical disk machine because I have to build 32-bit
>> packages to test. All of my previous TDEHW testing has been with 64-bit
>> packages.
>>
>> Darrell
>
> OK, thank you for the information.  If you want to, you can comment out
> line 999 of file tdehardwarebackend.cpp and see if the TDEHWLib backend
> handles the same situation(two identical volume labels) gracefully or not.
>  If it does, that line of code can be removed from GIT.
>
> Tim

Sorry, I posted the wrong action above.  Instead of commenting out line
999, you would need to replace it with this line of code:
diskLabel = medium->label();

Tim