(In reply to comment #4)
> *** Bug 23770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not sure how you can consider 17607 a duplicate of this bug report -
Specifically the part that I am concerned about is the reported error, which
definetly differs from that which is reported in 18394.
Unable to mount the selected volume.
Error: given UDI is not a mountable volume
Additionally, in Bug 23770, I reported I am able to automount and use a audio or
data CD in the CD-RW drive (master drive on IDE2), but when I place the same
disk(s) in the DVD-ROM drive, I always get the above error.
The fact that there is no problem with automounting CD-RW, yet the DVD-ROM can't
be automounted, and fact the error messages don't match, would seem to me to
indicate to entirely seperate, but (what may be) parallel issues.
And while I feel the original bug report(17607) got side tracked (hijacked) by
other, seperate issues, the fact remains I don't see the connection between
17607 and 18394.
And for my future knowledge, how can a higher reported bug #, cancel out a
earlier one. If a reported bug is to be considered a duplicate, shouldn't the
earlier reported one (in this case, 17607) be considered the valid one, and
follow-on reported bugs be considered duplicates?
(In reply to comment #4)
> *** Bug 23770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not sure how you can consider 17607 a duplicate of this bug report -
Specifically the part that I am concerned about is the reported error, which
definetly differs from that which is reported in 18394.
Unable to mount the selected volume.
Error: given UDI is not a mountable volume
Additionally, in Bug 23770, I reported I am able to automount and use a audio or
data CD in the CD-RW drive (master drive on IDE2), but when I place the same
disk(s) in the DVD-ROM drive, I always get the above error.
The fact that there is no problem with automounting CD-RW, yet the DVD-ROM can't
be automounted, and fact the error messages don't match, would seem to me to
indicate to entirely seperate, but (what may be) parallel issues.
And while I feel the original bug report(17607) got side tracked (hijacked) by
other, seperate issues, the fact remains I don't see the connection between
17607 and 18394.
And for my future knowledge, how can a higher reported bug #, cancel out a
earlier one. If a reported bug is to be considered a duplicate, shouldn't the
earlier reported one (in this case, 17607) be considered the valid one, and
follow-on reported bugs be considered duplicates?