>>> 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