| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dominique_71
Veteran
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1879
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dmpogo wrote: | | Dominique_71 wrote: | I agree with you with the fact at it is a tarball from august 2006 and at gentoo don't even try to incorpore it in portage. That's for the short term.
But on the long run xmms is not a viable option. Just read the comment about xmms on the xmms2 website. Xmms is so hard to modify at when you do a modification on a component, you break something else. |
I do not disagree with that. Is is just that I from this forum I was left with impression that xmms is already falling apart.
While my experience have shown that its problems are still in the future, perhaps not that remote one, of course. |
It is bad for xmms. It is the second popular audio player that go away from gentoo in a few weeks (or months). The first one was the alsaplayer. The fact is at both are buggy with their last stable release. I don't know if the last cvs tarball from august solve all the bugs for xmms. What I think is really bad is at it is no real remplacement for xmms at that time and it would have been better to at least test this last cvs tarball and have it in portage with a ~arch keyword in the maintime.
I think at it is another problem with gentoo and xmms. Gentoo is in need of more developpers and the sound is a very fast moving target on linux. So maybe at the gentoo devs just have other priorities as to fix an ebuild that will soon desapear in anycase.
_________________
"Confirm You are a robot." - the singularity |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kulture
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fine, ill be the xmms maintainer then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drwook
Veteran
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 1324
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kulture wrote: | | Fine, ill be the xmms maintainer then. |
Fine, fix some bugs and show some commitment, and you might get some assistance too. Until then... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BasketCase
n00b
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 67
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drwook wrote: | | kulture wrote: | | Fine, ill be the xmms maintainer then. |
Fine, fix some bugs and show some commitment, and you might get some assistance too. Until then... |
Don't forget that you have to maintain gtk+-1.2 as well.
BTW, the last release of audacious fixed all of my complaints. While I haven't actually deleted my xmms overlay yet I have unmerged xmms and all of its related packages including even gtk+-1.2. As it stands once I made an xmms>audacious symlink I couldn't tell the difference between the two anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0xDEADBEEF
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has that "audacious will cheerfully eat 400 megs of RAM while playing MP3 streams" bug been fixed since 1.1.2? (update: yes, it apparently has (update: silly optimism, there it is at 500 megs, so that'd be a no at 1.2.2))
Sorry to be in the "grumpy because his favorite horse was shot" category, I actually read the thread and appreciate the efforts (shakes fists at triggerhappy portage maintainers).
Last edited by 0xDEADBEEF on Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:21 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BasketCase
n00b
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 67
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 0xDEADBEEF wrote: | Has that "audacious will cheerfully eat 400 megs of RAM while playing MP3 streams" bug been fixed since 1.1.2?
Sorry to be in the "grumpy because his favorite horse was shot" category, I actually read the thread and appreciate the efforts (shakes fists at triggerhappy portage maintainers). |
My currently running instance of Audacious (1.2.2) is using 65MB of memory. While that still sounds higher than xmms it is actually better because I no longer have 2 versions of gtk+ shared libs sitting in there with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BasketCase wrote: | | drwook wrote: | | kulture wrote: | | Fine, ill be the xmms maintainer then. |
Fine, fix some bugs and show some commitment, and you might get some assistance too. Until then... |
Don't forget that you have to maintain gtk+-1.2 as well.
BTW, the last release of audacious fixed all of my complaints. While I haven't actually deleted my xmms overlay yet I have unmerged xmms and all of its related packages including even gtk+-1.2. As it stands once I made an xmms>audacious symlink I couldn't tell the difference between the two anymore. |
gtl+1.2 is still in the tree and is used by other things than xmms |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BasketCase wrote: | | 0xDEADBEEF wrote: | Has that "audacious will cheerfully eat 400 megs of RAM while playing MP3 streams" bug been fixed since 1.1.2?
Sorry to be in the "grumpy because his favorite horse was shot" category, I actually read the thread and appreciate the efforts (shakes fists at triggerhappy portage maintainers). |
My currently running instance of Audacious (1.2.2) is using 65MB of memory. While that still sounds higher than xmms it is actually better because I no longer have 2 versions of gtk+ shared libs sitting in there with it. |
It is nonsense. All runtime gtk+1.2 libraries constitute 1.8Mb total. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lost_soul
n00b
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| audacious is still a buggy player. try to add more than 7k songs and it will be thinking every time when you run it. amaroK is a shit too. I <3 XMMS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BasketCase
n00b
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 67
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmpogo wrote: | | gtl+1.2 is still in the tree and is used by other things than xmms |
Nothing that I still use uses gtk+-1.2. If you still have it installed you should check and see if anything that uses it is anything you really want to keep around anyways.
| lost_soul wrote: | | audacious is still a buggy player. try to add more than 7k songs and it will be thinking every time when you run it. amaroK is a shit too. I <3 XMMS. |
I just queued up 12471 songs and nothing bad happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0xDEADBEEF
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lost_soul wrote: | | audacious is still a buggy player. try to add more than 7k songs and it will be thinking every time when you run it. amaroK is a shit too. I <3 XMMS. |
Could it be a song metadata issue? Check if you can either disable immediate song scanning (there are two seperate relevant settings I gather) or have it use a playlist format that stores that data so it doesn't need to rescan. (these were addressed earlier in the thread)
Yeah, Amarok usually eats itsself early on. Not a huge surprise since it needs an external database to hold its playlist. (I don't use enough playlist slots to warrant that :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="BasketCase"] | dmpogo wrote: | | gtl+1.2 is still in the tree and is used by other things than xmms |
Nothing that I still use uses gtk+-1.2. If you still have it installed you should check and see if anything that uses it is anything you really want to keep around anyways.
Good for you, I have a lot of proprietary software using gtk+1.2. After all, OS is just OS, the goal is to run applicaitons.
The point is, xmms maintainer for now does not have mainten gtk+1.2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dominique_71 wrote: | [
I think at it is another problem with gentoo and xmms. Gentoo is in need of more developpers and the sound is a very fast moving target on linux. So maybe at the gentoo devs just have other priorities as to fix an ebuild that will soon desapear in anycase. |
What is so particular fast moving with the sound ? Hardware is taken care by Alsa, and is not changing that fast. XMMS got stabiliezed to present
form around 1999 and lived changed little thorugh 6 years. After all, now we are happy that audacious is reaching the stage where xmms has been for years, that is enjoy being back at the level of 2000 
At the level of simple file/playlist playback (all those media library systems like mpd are another story) I don't see any advances in the last 5 years. If anything, the problem of XMMS seemed to be that sound is one part that seemed solved and looked too boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lost_soul
n00b
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 0xDEADBEEF wrote: | | lost_soul wrote: | | audacious is still a buggy player. try to add more than 7k songs and it will be thinking every time when you run it. amaroK is a shit too. I <3 XMMS. |
Could it be a song metadata issue? Check if you can either disable immediate song scanning (there are two seperate relevant settings I gather) or have it use a playlist format that stores that data so it doesn't need to rescan. (these were addressed earlier in the thread)
Yeah, Amarok usually eats itsself early on. Not a huge surprise since it needs an external database to hold its playlist. (I don't use enough playlist slots to warrant that |
Yes, but loading on demand sux. And XMMS with the same option, doesn't load everytime, just 1 time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0xDEADBEEF
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lost_soul wrote: | | 0xDEADBEEF wrote: | | lost_soul wrote: | | audacious is still a buggy player. try to add more than 7k songs and it will be thinking every time when you run it. |
Could it be a song metadata issue? Check if you can either disable immediate song scanning (there are two seperate relevant settings I gather) or have it use a playlist format that stores that data so it doesn't need to rescan. (these were addressed earlier in the thread) |
Yes, but loading on demand sux. And XMMS with the same option, doesn't load everytime, just 1 time. |
I havent tested it myself, but...
| nenolod wrote: | | if you use audacious 1.2.x, you can simply use the XSPF playlist format, and it will load more quickly as metadata/format info is saved. |
I've noted the default list saves out as xspf. Beyond this I can't help, good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kulture
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| how do I make audacious use xspf? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiktak
n00b
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 50
Location: varies.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: "Choice is what Gentoo is about" - we need to main |
|
|
Hello,
as you can see from my registration date (which was even some time after my Gentoo conversion date), I have been a content Gentoo user for more than 4 years now (albeit I seldom try to proselytize or bore other people with it).
I use it on all my boxes, laptop, at home and university; and I learned to live with the occasional drastic changes to the "standard Gentoo way of doing things" (like that whole 'new' /etc/portage/package.* stuff ^_^ ).
I do not do much fancy stuff - mostly edit-compile work, www reading and watching movies; no eye-candy, no Gnome, no KDE etc. - therefore I do not often update many of my packages and rarely run a full update (sometimes emerge -u system).
Recent trends of removing packages from portage have me very much worried though.
I am talking about Xmms (the traceless removal which I noticed only a few days ago - I was very shocked) and RealPlayer <10 (with v>=10 many old files do not play anymore; I had to manually get an old package and untar it to /usr/local - precisely what I wanted to avoid by moving from Suse to gentoo in mid-2002).
Even if a (popular and old) package is found to have a security hole or something like that, users should still have the choice to install it. That is why I came to Gentoo in the first place. I can understand if ebuilds for binary packages that get ABI-incompatible are removed from portage, but the current situation is hard to bear, because the reliability (it seems I measure that also by reproducibility) of portage is in fact waning.
It seems to me Portage is at the crossroads. In my opinion we need mechanisms in-portage for
- *** Finer granularity than just hard-masking / arch-based masking! ***
Those fine keywords we have, why are they not used to mark "insecure", "deprecated" and "obsolete", which could be in turn re-enabled per-packet in /etc/portage
- For all removed packages that have been in the official tree before: an Overlay (or several, like a semiannual/annual overlay).
- For removed/security-masked packages, it would be good to have a mechanism/database listing substitutes, reasons for masking etc (the comment lines in the hard mask file are not acceptable anymore). This does not neccessarily have to be fully mirrored locally (emerge / eselect / whatever could look this up online on-demand).
If any of this is already planned (or existant) - please do not flame me, I unfortunately did not have the time to pay attention much to general Gentoo development (until now, because this worries me), and didn't find it by forum and google search...
Thanks for your attention,
if I can be of any help designing/coding/testing/talking/motivating someone please tell me so!
tiktak
P.S. All this is certainly not enough to make me change away from Gentoo, it is still the best (distribution;philosophy) tuple around
_________________
get_user("tiktak")->post_counter++; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phenax
l33t
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 972
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The package is unmaintained, and has tons of bugs.
I can really see the logic in removing it. There are perfectly sane alternatives. Audacious can use the exact themes, etc.
Now, if it's too much for someone to move these in an overlay [and maintain the packages themselves] then they are quite lazy. You can always grab old ebuilds aswell.
Is there a reason for keeping it? Not really.
Although, for the most part, I believe that hardmasking it would be a better solution. That's what it's for. The user will see why it's masked, and hopefully the mask message tells them about alternatives, why it's masked, and if they still insist on using it let them unmask it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madisonicus
Veteran
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 1130
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixnut
Bodhisattva
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 10974
Location: the dutch mountains
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
merged above three posts here.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0xDEADBEEF
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phenax wrote: | The package is unmaintained, and has tons of bugs.
I can really see the logic in removing it. There are perfectly sane alternatives. Audacious can use the exact themes, etc. |
...and eat half my system's RAM and ... hey, XMMS didn't do that!!!
| Phenax wrote: | | Now, if it's too much for someone to move these in an overlay [and maintain the packages themselves] then they are quite lazy. You can always grab old ebuilds aswell. |
Yeah, I'm horribly lazy, I've just been sitting around while my entire system recompiles for three days, while my 3D accel is broken. Now on top of configuring/compiling a kernel, managing a GCC update spanning over 700 packages, and fretting over all the stuff I can't do in the meantime. I'm supposed to learn how to create and admin a personal branch of portage because someone decided to throw out software that worked, had no true replacement (no offense Audacious crew, you're pretty close), and would have been pretty easy to just stop updating and keep it available.
| Phenax wrote: | | Although, for the most part, I believe that hardmasking it would be a better solution. That's what it's for. The user will see why it's masked, and hopefully the mask message tells them about alternatives, why it's masked, and if they still insist on using it let them unmask it. |
At least you can see better ways, even if you seem to be cheering for the shock and awe approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiktak
n00b
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 50
Location: varies.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nixnut wrote: | | merged above three posts here. |
My post was not about Xmms. It was about portage.
Xmms was just one of two generic examples, which I could have left out. That would not have changed my point.
For example, there are countless instances in which blindly removing all but the latest version of a lib or driver breaks compatibility with older hardware.
Please reinstate my original topic, I do not want to be associated with this flame war thread. Thank you very much.
_________________
get_user("tiktak")->post_counter++; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nenolod
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 199
Location: Tulsa, OK
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 0xDEADBEEF wrote: | | Phenax wrote: | The package is unmaintained, and has tons of bugs.
I can really see the logic in removing it. There are perfectly sane alternatives. Audacious can use the exact themes, etc. |
...and eat half my system's RAM and ... hey, XMMS didn't do that!!! |
It is not nice to sell snake oil.
On my system, when I have 3157 playlist entries, Audacious only uses about 5% of my system RAM. XMMS uses 4%. There isn't much difference, and Audacious stores more data about the files, playlist entries and whatnot which explains the discrepancy.
If you're experiencing memory leaks, you probably ran some dated version. Audacious has been run against purify and checks out entirely cleanly.
--nenolod |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BasketCase
n00b
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 67
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, if Audacious eats half of your RAM then you don't have enough RAM. Certainly not enough to run stuff like FireFox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0xDEADBEEF
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I do see Firefox chafe at my gig of RAM every now and then. Usually though, its not as bad as when Audacious 1.2.2 does its thing. Oh, I have 19 playlist entries BTW... (like I said, not quite enough to warrant the database approach Amarok uses :-)
I will update when a newer Audacious lands on my system, or if I catch changed behavior against the newer GCC compile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Multimedia
