On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Modestas Vainius <mo...@debian.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> On Tuesday 10 July 2012 13:07:23 Ira Rice wrote:
> > In the NEWS file for 2.6~beta1, it mentioned that for smaller playlists,
> there
> > would be a few minute delay while it updated the database format.
> There is no NEWS file in amarok packaging. You are probably referring to
> changelog.gz
> Anyway, could you exactly quote the changelog entry you are referring to?

I seem to recall getting a prompt of some sort, perhaps from apt-listbugs,
which alerted me to a database upgrade. I don't see it mentioned in the
changelog, and assumed that it was from the NEWS file, because of my own
settings with it.

However, you can see the same announcement about a database upgrade if you
look at the beta announcement for 2.6 beta 1 for amarok (
http://amarok.kde.org/en/releases/2.6/beta/1), where it says: "This release
includes a database update that can take up to a few minutes to complete. A
dialog will prevent use of Amarok while this critical change is applied."

> > However, I
> > have a larger database (4600+ tracks in a playlist, with more on disk),
> and
> > this takes more along the lines of 1 1/2 to 2 hours, where it then
> doesn't
> > give any obvious indication that it is then doing anything (but which I
> can
> > verify that it's upgrading the tables through MySQL Workbench).
> Can you paste what
> $ cat ~/.kde/share/apps/amarok/mysqle/amarok/admin.MYD | od -a -x
> returns? You may get more help by reporting the bug to
> https://bugs.kde.org
> though.


0000000 etx nul dc3 soh nul   ~  ff   A   M   A   R   O   K   _   T   R
           0003    0113    fe00    410c    414d    4f52    5f4b    5254
0000020   A   C   K soh nul nul nul nul soh nul dc1 nul   ~  nl   D   B
           4341    014b    0000    0000    0001    0011    0afe    4244
0000040   _   V   E   R   S   I   O   N bel nul nul nul soh nul nak nul
           565f    5245    4953    4e4f    0007    0000    0001    0015
0000060   ~  so   A   M   A   R   O   K   _   P   O   D   C   A   S   T
           0efe    4d41    5241    4b4f    505f    444f    4143    5453
0000100 etx nul nul nul etx nul sub stx nul   ~ dc3   A   M   A   R   O
           0003    0000    0003    021a    fe00    4113    414d    4f52
0000120   K   _   U   S   E   R   P   L   A   Y   L   I   S   T stx nul
           5f4b    5355    5245    4c50    5941    494c    5453    0002
0000140 nul nul nul nul etx nul etb soh nul   ~ dle   A   M   A   R   O
           0000    0000    0003    0117    fe00    4110    414d    4f52
0000160   K   _   B   O   O   K   M   A   R   K   S eot nul nul nul nul
           5f4b    4f42    4b4f    414d    4b52    0453    0000    0000

As for reporting my bug directly, I can't say that I've really had much
success with that in the past in relation to other bugs, and have had more
luck with IRC (which, although they then got fixed, then got reverted back
to where they were before shortly afterwards, which kind of shook some of
my confidence in them a bit), as well as having been redirected on a few of
them as well, which still haven't been fixed, to report them to my distro
directly, because they then claimed that they didn't exist, even though I
could reproduce them on several different machines that I had or which I
had access to.

In any case, while getting this fixed upstream would be rather desirable
for me, all I'm concerned with at the moment is whether this is suitable
for release in Wheezy or not. Also, sorry for the short rant as well for
why I haven't bothered with forwarding this upstream yet.
pkg-kde-extras mailing list

Reply via email to