ISO support - where is it?

[claydoh]

sudo mount -t iso9660 -o loop test1.iso ~/.local/ISO returns:
mount: /home/scott/.local/ISO: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop1, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.

This is saying that the file may not be an iso file, in terms of iso9660 , which is a cd or dvd image type file.

[shag00]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is not a standard iso file but it is readable by the Windows iso mounting software I linked above. The issue should not be one of semantics about standards, it should be one about if an iso is created in Windows it should be able to be read in Linux. CDEmu and Acetoneiso both claim they open most everything, when they don't open this type of file. The file is to large to burn on a DVD so I can't really comment whether a DVD hardware player would play it and I do not know what software was used to create the iso. The author does, funnily enough say, that the image can be burnt to an optical disk though.

[Don B. Cilly]

Well, what filesystem does it say it has?
Maybe there is a way to mount it by changing the -t iso9660 (or other) parameter.

See,with file all my *buntu ISOs report:
focal-desktop-amd64.iso: DOS/MBR boot sector; partition 2 : ID=0xef, start-CHS (0x3ff,254,63), end-CHS (0x3ff,254,63), startsector 3685376, 7936 sectors
which does not tell me much. But isoinfo tells me a lot more:

$ isoinfo -d -i focal-desktop-amd64.iso
CD-ROM is in ISO 9660 format
System id: 
Volume id: Kubuntu 20.04 LTS amd64
Volume set id: 
Publisher id: 
Data preparer id: XORRISO-1.2.4 2012.07.20.130001, LIBISOBURN-1.2.4, LIBISOFS-1.2.4, LIBBURN-1.2.4
(etc...)

[shag00]

OK,
test.iso has a stack of information about it.
test1.iso only returns that it is not in iso 9660 format.

After further investigation it appears there is no standard for packaging an iso file. There are a number of standards for formatting the data that goes into an iso of which one is iso 9660 and it is apparently the most widely used outside of the music industry. Other standards for formatting include UDF, High Sierra, FAT 32 and HFS. So the real issue here is that Linux or Linux 3rd party developers do not support a wide range of formats used in creating an iso file. A bit like a bar that only serves beer or wine I suppose.

So the end result is the old tired line of, if you want to do all your work with all the people you interact with you need to use Windows. Very frustrating.

[Don B. Cilly]

test1.iso only returns that it is not in iso 9660 format.

Is that all it says? Like

$ isoinfo -d -i test1.iso
CD-ROM is not in ISO 9660 format

and nothing else?

[shag00]

This is it in full:
scott@scottubuntu:~/Pictures$ isoinfo -d -i test1.iso
CD-ROM is NOT in ISO 9660 format

[Don B. Cilly]

There has to be a way to find out what filesystem it's in.
What does
file test1.iso
say?

[shag00]

has to be a way to read it easily too lol

anyway here it is:
scott@scottubuntu:~/Pictures$ file test1.iso
test1.iso: data

[Don B. Cilly]

I'm afraid this is kind of sort of like vaguely bugging me, so I'll insist until I'm told to shut up :·)

The main reason being, I guess:

So the end result is the old tired line of, if you want to do all your work with all the people you interact with you need to use Windows. Very frustrating.

Which to some extent is true and even unavoidable, all considered, but I'm such a hard-headed old geezer, I've pretty much always found a workaround to this for all the Windows stuff I need.
Now, I guess you could probably convert the ISO to iso9660 format in Windows, copy it to the Linux system, and try and mount it.
Me, I don't have no Windows, so if I had a mystery ISO like that, I would try:

- add myself to the "fuse" group and see if acetone sees it.
- sudo mount -t auto -o loop test1.iso /mountpoint
- sudo mount -t udf -o loop test1.iso /mountpoint
- sudo apt install iat (it's really small)
- iat test1.iso test2.iso (which takes ages and probably won't work, but should in theory convert anything to iso9660 format)

If the iat thing works, I would then retry acetone with the fuse group, and/or the others that hadn't work before.
In short, I would away until I found a solution.
But I don't have any recalcitrant ISOs to work with, so...

[shag00]

I just love it Don, gladens the heart to see people like you. Anyway, the fuse group was done away with some years ago as, as I understand it, anyone who can access the file has access to fuse automatically, so basically there is no restriction on who can access fuse these days. So even creating a fuse group and adding myself to it will only give me the same permissions I already have. If I understand correctly iat will only, hopefully, identify the file system, not actually help mount it.

I have taken a different approach, I dual boot and every 6 months or so I spin everything up in Wine and submit a number of bugs to get programs I need to work with, working in wine. It works, as much as I would like them to drop everyone else's problems and focus on mine I accept the reality and congratulate those guys on a very good job. The progress in wine over the last year has hugely improved. I have bought myself a groovy new rig and it might take me 10 seconds to boot between systems now. To me it is more important to get a complete ISO mount utility available in linux rather than spending time doing something I am not very good at, ie, fixing other people's ideas of what an ISO mount utility should be. As it appears you have done some research on this subject you must be aware that many people have run into this problem.

This is a slightly different problem though, this should work natively in Ubuntu/Linux but does not. If you want the recalcitrant ISO I am happy to post it somewhere, (if I have a large enough storage allotment) so you can download it but it is 20GB.

[Snowhog]

sudo mount -t iso9660 -o loop test1.iso ~/.local/ISO returns:
mount: /home/scott/.local/ISO: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop1, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.

This is saying that the file may not be an iso file, in terms of iso9660 , which is a cd or dvd image type file.

Just because a file has an .iso file name extension does't guarantee that it is actually an ISO file.

[Don B. Cilly]

To me it is more important to get a complete ISO mount utility available in linux ...
... This is a slightly different problem though, this should work natively in Ubuntu/Linux but does not.

Yes, and given Linux developers' uncanny fixation with ISOs, it is quite puzzling that it doesn't (seem to) work.
I guess that mount -t auto (or udf) doesn't either.

Maybe you could find out what filesystem it is in, with whatever you use in Windows... just out of curiosity.
As to uploading the thing, thanks, but 20G is a bit much, innit.

[AH] And iat is supposed to actually convert the thing to iso9660 format... which I've tried and it does... from iso9660 format as I had no other format to try it with :·)

[WWDERW]

Yes, and given Linux developers' uncanny fixation with ISOs, it is quite puzzling that it doesn't (seem to) work.
I guess that mount -t auto (or udf) doesn't either.

As far as the ISOs that I deal with, both of the dolphin services that you have done worked just fine. I did have to add the

-J

option to make iso one as files and directories were truncated I actually had to remove the

fi

at the end of the mount iso one (kept on popping an error msg directly related to that on 19.10. Could be something funky with updates and my rig though.

[Don B. Cilly]

As far as the ISOs that I deal with, both of the dolphin services that you have done worked just fine. I did have to add ... I actually had to remove the ... at the end of the mount iso one

The <fi> at the end of the mount-iso one is a blatant mistake (obvious leftover).
Thing is, on my system, it works just fine all the same, so I didn't notice.

The make-iso one, I tried again (without the -J), couldn't spot any "truncated" files or directories, what should I try to reproduce it?

[WWDERW]

The make-iso one, I tried again (without the -J), couldn't spot any "truncated" files or directories, what should I try to reproduce it?

If the naming format follows the schema of 8.3, you'll be fine. Some of my file/folders did not, quite a lot actually, so they ended up getting truncated. I think it has to do with some odd MS-DOS compatibility as well.