Dnia 05-02-2008, Wt o godzinie 08:42 -0500, Matt pisze: > Hi All, > I wasn't thinking so much of a plugin for moving the library, or a > way for RB to manage my files for me. I do a lot of file management > of my music with other tools. Some files get deleted, some get moved, > and some get renamed. I was thinking that it would be nice if RB was > smart enough to realize when a newly found file was just an older > missing file with a new name. That's what I suggested! Using filesystem is deprecated. Everybody is leaving pure filesystem-based management to some other means - tagging, metadata, whatever. See for example GMail or PaperBox. Tree structure is dead. My music files wander often, because I like to keep metadate up-to-date with MusicBrainz library, so filenames aren't persistent. However there are things, which are persistent and doesn't change: PUID for example or the MUSICBRAINZ_TRACK_ID in metadata. Checksums are not good, because they cover whole files (with metadata) - the only good solution would be checksumming only the audio part. Anyway, I put it once again, why Rhythmbox should have its own database if Tracker already does the management itself? Heck, it even has support for playlists and so on. Using native DB would only have sense if Tracker is for some reasons disabled or not working correctly. Every move of a file would be seen by Tracker which would update the location and always provide Rhythmbox with up-to-date data. Moreover: all my private data, like ratings and whatnot could be then shared between other applications which could use Tracker's Common Music DB. Whether I use Quod Libet, Rhythmbox, Muine, Amarok or whatever - everything would look the same. So why reinvent the wheel all over the time, when we really just need Common Music DB and that's all? Piotr Gaczkowski
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= =?UTF-8?Q?_wiadomo=C5=9Bci?= podpisana cyfrowo