Add information from the old article
There's some information left in the old article, that could be included either in this article or in the Amarok 2.x one. It isn't always clear what refers to which version, so if you figure that out, add it. Please try to sort it better than in the old article.
Comparing Amarok 1.4 and 2.x in a new article
Is anyone working on an Amarok 1.4 fork?
Aedit wrote in the main article:
However, you might still be interested in running this obsolete (until forked) version
So I wonder if there are plans for such a fork somewhere. -- Donald-teh-Duck
If there isn't one already then I guess it's just a matter of time. The amarok1 package in AUR continues to get patched to run with the latest Arch. Call that a fork (albeit a small, stable one) if you like. -- Aedit.
That big feature list would be more readable as text block
So if someone has the time to do it, please rewrite that part. --Donald-teh-Duck 17:20, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Amarok 1.4 downloads covers from amazon, not from last.fm, or maybe both?
At least when you do not use last.fm, Amarok will download the covers from Amazon.com (Screenshot), Amarokwiki:
Automatic cover art download using Amazon services
Idk if it also supports last.fm, please add at least amazon!
- Oh! If I try to reproduce your screenshot I see "Fetch from last.fm" where you have "Von amazon.com holen". Are you running the version from the current AUR? That was patched to replace amazon with last.fm. --Aedit
- No, I am currently not running the version from the AUR (I guess I should and will soon though, as this feature sounds very good). Well, it should at least be mentioned that only the patched version from the AUR supports Last.FM covers, the official version does not. --Donald-teh-Duck 16:29, 25 November 2009 (EST) (Sorry for forgetting to sign so often :p)
- Actually I am running amarok 1.4 inside a Debian chroot (laugh all you want, but it IS STABLE :p :p), because amarok1 builds (just tried that again), but it crashes all the time. I hope we can fix this - maybe by making an "official" fork with its own sourceforge/whatever page and a proper bugtracker? --Donald-teh-Duck 16:53, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- See fork section above. Just post in AUR comments or in the forum about your crashes and someone will help. I think you can post bugs for AUR packages too.--Aedit 10:48, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- Well you can't report bugs in the arch bugtracker for AUR packages, I just checked that, but I'll write it somewhere else soon. That sf.net project looks interesting although it lacks a homepage and some information about what patches are applied etc. --Donald-teh-Duck 12:13, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- My mistake, it's for bugs in the AUR system itself. I agree with you on the sf.net project. The individual patch info vs. 1.4.10 base has been lost. Just one initial upload and nothing since then. --Aedit 12:32, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- That doesn't seem to be the right place, too: - For any packages in the AUR contact the maintainer or leave a comment on the package's detail page. --Donald-teh-Duck 12:43, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- Just because of curiosity, would you like to start your own fork with proper bug management and maybe a new name and little new features? --Donald-teh-Duck 13:21, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- Hmm, all it needs is a git repo + gitweb + mailing list and some care. And a new name. I could do it, but I don't think I have enough free time to look after it. Fwiw, I find just a code repo (git) more useful than bug tracking systems (say Trac or Bugzilla) -- the formality complicates matters. --Aedit 14:52, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- I am also short on freetime and c++ coding skills, but apart from that I think a sf.net project with bugtracker and git repo would fit the needs. On the other hand I don't think that we should start such a project if we do not have the time to maintain it. --Donald-teh-Duck 14:56, 26 November 2009 (EST)