Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

KitchM · 2009-04-25 19:45:32

WARNING
Huge danger awaits anyone who gets tricked into upgrading to the current beta version of Amarok (2.x.+). The program does not have all of the features of 1.4. Even the features that are included do not work as well as 1.4. (An example is the Shoutcast listing. There is no listing of Internet radio stations. Therefore the user is forced to cut and paste from her browser.)

But what makes it worse is that there is no way to go back without taking out all of KDE and starting over. The downgrade process suggested by one user does not work to eliminate dependencies, and problems with existing newer files that were installed. (Uninstalling the 2.x version will not take out everything the "upgrade" did to the system.

Someone has certainly forgotten the KISS method and the Arch Way. This has caused my system to now have no Amarok to use at all. Damn shame. Now I have to find another mp3 stream player.

I want my music back!!!!!!

I hope someone puts up a warning on the main page of the web site.

Last edited by KitchM (2009-04-25 19:46:22)

lucke · 2009-04-25 19:50:10

PEBKAC comes to mind. I'm a calm man, but every time I read your posts concerning Amarok 2, something breaks inside me.

KitchM · 2009-04-27 20:57:32

Yes, I see your problem.

1. Try to read each part that is written carefully, so that you can grasp the meaning and intentions. [snip]

Last edited by B (2009-04-27 22:02:56)

toad · 2009-04-27 21:05:48

Where are the admins when you need 'em?

KitchM · 2009-04-27 21:24:11

Yes, where are they? There are way too many trolls.

Last edited by KitchM (2009-04-27 21:29:41)

KitchM · 2009-04-27 21:32:05

For the rest who just don't get it, please allow me to clarify.

1. The user of Arch Linux package management system has a right to expect that the automated upgrade system works properly to protect their system from not becoming disabled.

2. It is wrong to create a package update that is not an update. The particular package in question is not an update. It is a change from one code base to another completely diffferent one. It is a complete rewrite of the program, and therefore a different program. (Those who follow the historical progress of the app should know that fact.) The change from a working program to one that is in beta is a very bad thing to spring on users. There can be no excuse, unless the system is broken. If that is the case, then those in the know should darn well fix the system.

3. There is a differnce in the names of the repositories for a reason. If one avoids the experimental and under-test type of programs by choosign only the stable release repositories, any person, including newbies, have a right to expect that what they download actually works. Period. There can be no exception.

If, on the other hand, someone really intended to leave things in this sad state where we cannot depend upon the obvious assumption that the repository categories imply, then they must clearly indicate that up front and in advance of use.

4. As some people misunderstand, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with that of Arch being based upon a rolling-release format. Rolling release means first and foremost that the system will be kept up to date with updates that are stable. Beta software has no place in that concept at all.

5. The situation is so bad, that one cannot go back to the old version for some unknown reason. Even though the program is not installed, the program is shown to be waiting to be upgraded. One has a right to be surprised and ask, "Upgrade from what?".

Please only respond to this post if you can help figure out what the heck went wrong. I have never experienced another package doing this out of the hundreds I've installed. Anyone should be able to see the clear significance of this point. Most package creators are very responsible people, and I personally have witnessed similar mistakes being rapidly fixed when brought to the attention of the creator. I don't believe this was even intention, but rather that the impiled rules were misunderstood. Those of us who are not programmers still have knowledge to share, and that knowledge is valuable, if for no other reason then to warn the ignorant.

I still want my damn music player back. I chose it because it worked for me, and I don't want anyone messing that up. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Thank you.

.:B:. · 2009-04-27 22:08:08

Lucke: instead of complaining to the 'offensive' poster and potentially turning up the heat, rather have the post reported and refrain from further comment. Generally, it will only make things worse.

KitchWM: thanks for reporting (and partially censoring) yourself, I can understand your frustration, but surely there must be a way to keep (or rebuild) Amarok 1.4 with the new KDE installed.

Edit: sorry Snowman, forgot to zap the posts... Better like that

Allan · 2009-04-28 00:28:41

Does this not work for you? http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25712

Amarok2 is declared the latest stable version from upstream. You declare it to be a beta. It seems the developer involved in maintaining amaork put more weight on the upstream developers opinions than yours... Strange that.

Misfit138 · 2009-04-28 01:04:53

KitchM wrote:

1. The user of Arch Linux package management system has a right to expect that the automated upgrade system works properly to protect their system from not becoming disabled.

*Sigh* Making such a statement is not only highly inaccurate, it also shows a lack of appreciation.
Who gives these rights? Where are they guaranteed or cited? Where is Arch described as having a stable branch? This is a do-it-yourself community of volunteers. It is the user who manages his own Arch system.

2. It is wrong to create a package update that is not an update. The particular package in question is not an update. It is a change from one code base to another completely diffferent one. It is a complete rewrite of the program, and therefore a different program. (Those who follow the historical progress of the app should know that fact.) The change from a working program to one that is in beta is a very bad thing to spring on users. There can be no excuse, unless the system is broken. If that is the case, then those in the know should darn well fix the system.

2.a This is an upstream update. Like ALL FOSS, the furthering of the code and forward development always takes precedence over backward compatibility and sentimental attachment to 'the old way'. Sometimes upstream updates break things for some users, from the kernel on down to, yes, Amarok.
2.b

"If that is the case, then those in the know should darn well fix the system."

-That would be you.

3. There is a differnce in the names of the repositories for a reason. If one avoids the experimental and under-test type of programs by choosign only the stable release repositories, any person, including newbies, have a right to expect that what they download actually works. Period. There can be no exception.
If, on the other hand, someone really intended to leave things in this sad state where we cannot depend upon the obvious assumption that the repository categories imply, then they must clearly indicate that up front and in advance of use.

As I stated above, Arch does not have a so-called stable branch and there is no 'bill of rights' guaranteeing any such thing. It is a bleeding-edge distribution without backports, without older versions and is always rolling forward, period. Upstream changes in Xorg 1.6 annoyed some people as well, but such is the price of progression.

4. As some people misunderstand, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with that of Arch being based upon a rolling-release format. Rolling release means first and foremost that the system will be kept up to date with updates that are stable. Beta software has no place in that concept at all.

Your (highly) flawed perception is hardly a fact simply by merit of being stated as such. Your issue is with Amarok. Therefore, I would submit to you that being proactive and pragmatic in your confrontation of the issue will likely yield better results than ranting. Find a workaround or solution that works and offer it, rather than rants, to anyone else having the same issue. Complaints of this sort on the forums are invariably a waste of time. Were you truly expecting help with such an unappreciative attitude? Somehow I doubt it.

5. The situation is so bad, that one cannot go back to the old version for some unknown reason. Even though the program is not installed, the program is shown to be waiting to be upgraded. One has a right to be surprised and ask, "Upgrade from what?".

There are tools for recompiling and/or/building your own Amarok packages, cleanly installable via pacman. ABS/makepkg/aur
Trolling. Bikeshed.
Closing.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-04-25 19:45:32

Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#2 2009-04-25 19:50:10

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#3 2009-04-27 20:57:32

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#4 2009-04-27 21:05:48

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#5 2009-04-27 21:24:11

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#6 2009-04-27 21:32:05

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#7 2009-04-27 22:08:08

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#8 2009-04-28 00:28:41

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

#9 2009-04-28 01:04:53

Re: Amarok Upgrade From 1.4

Board footer