amarok - with or without mysql support

dp · 2005-03-22 22:02:12

some time ago, amarok included support for mysql. this let's you roll your collection-db in a mysql database instead of a sqlite file.

there was some requests per email and i recompiled amarok to support mysql. this meant having mysql as a dependency.

now there is a request to remove mysql support from amarok:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details&id=2437

now i want to see, what the community thinks about it.

phrakture · 2005-03-22 22:23:32

I went with the last option - but IMHO if it supports sqlite for it's internal db, mysql shouldn't really be needed, unless you're running a "check out my mp3zzzz" website which uses php+mysql....

topito · 2005-03-22 23:18:20

And why not just saying something like "amarok has been compiled with mysql support, pacman -S mysql if you want to use it" when you install amarok, like when you install kdebase (or kdelibs maybe i don't remember exactly which one).

Another option could be to split amarok with two packages, like "amarok" and "amarok-mysql" but that will be more work your you and more packages to mantain...

also I dont think that a lot of people with use mysql with amarok...

oscar · 2005-03-22 23:42:04

I think it was me that pushed dp into adding mysql-support to amarok (I'm (m(-))onotux on irc) - the reason I did it was because of the performance when dealing with lot's of songs (like in my case, I have _a lot_ of songs in my DB) is greatly increased when using mysql.
Why not simply compile amarok with mysql, and tell the users that if they want to use mysql as a db in amarok to install mysql? (like with kdebindings)

phrakture · 2005-03-22 23:45:37

oscar wrote:

Why not simply compile amarok with mysql, and tell the users that if they want to use mysql as a db in amarok to install mysql? (like with kdebindings)

I figured it was one of those "if compiled with mysql, i blow up if you don't have it"

dp · 2005-03-23 00:15:25

topito wrote:

And why not just saying something like "amarok has been compiled with mysql support, pacman -S mysql if you want to use it" when you install amarok, like when you install kdebase (or kdelibs maybe i don't remember exactly which one).
Another option could be strip amarok with two packages, like "amarok" and "amarok-mysql" but that will be more work your you and more packages to mantain...
also I dont think that a lot of people with use mysql with amarok...

 [damir@Asteraceae ~]$ ldd /opt/kde/bin/amarokapp | grep sql 
 libmysqlclient.so.14 => /usr/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.14 (0xb6424000)

and this causes

[damir@Asteraceae ~]$ amarok
amaroK: [Loader] Starting amarokapp..
amaroK: [Loader] Don't run gdb, valgrind, etc. against this binary! Use amarokapp.
amarokapp: error while loading shared libraries: libmysqlclient.so.14: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

if no mysql is present

dp · 2005-03-23 00:17:56

oscar wrote:

I think it was me that pushed dp into adding mysql-support to amarok (I'm (m(-))onotux on irc) - the reason I did it was because of the performance when dealing with lot's of songs (like in my case, I have _a lot_ of songs in my DB) is greatly increased when using mysql.
Why not simply compile amarok with mysql, and tell the users that if they want to use mysql as a db in amarok to install mysql? (like with kdebindings)

you are one of the people who wrote about mysql being good for amarok, yes ;-)

bindings run when used, amarokapp runs whenever you want amarok to run

dp · 2005-03-23 00:48:19

fjleon wrote:

Hello guys, i am the reporter from bug 2437.
I believe including mysql support in amarok is against arch linux's policy. This is supposed to be a small, efficient, non-bloat distro.
Amarok already includes sqllite, which besides the name can handle very big databases (i am talking terabytes here).
Even so, i went over to the amarok guys and asked why i would want to use mysql in amarok.
Their response "only if you want to store your music database remotely"
So i guess that most users don't need this extra dependency, which i think it's bigger than amarok itself. It also wastes arch's servers' bandwidth and our users.
But i agree, let the public decide. I already voted with a firm NO to this.
Cheers!

thank you for reason and patience

Dusty · 2005-03-23 01:04:08

fjleon wrote:

Even so, i went over to the amarok guys and asked why i would want to use mysql in amarok.
Their response "only if you want to store your music database remotely"

If you want to store databases remotely, that should mean that MySQL does NOT need to be installed on the local machine for amorak to use it. Better check the dependency error again, maybe there's a way to enable MySQL suport but disable loading it for local lookup?

Dusty

dp · 2005-03-23 01:09:24

Dusty wrote:

fjleon wrote:
Even so, i went over to the amarok guys and asked why i would want to use mysql in amarok.
Their response "only if you want to store your music database remotely"
If you want to store databases remotely, that should mean that MySQL does NOT need to be installed on the local machine for amorak to use it. Better check the dependency error again, maybe there's a way to enable MySQL suport but disable loading it for local lookup?
Dusty

hmm ... maybe amarok can statically link to libmysqlclient.so ? (thinking aloud)

cmp · 2005-03-23 09:20:55

two packages isn't an option, is it?
you could also split the mysql package in a server/client pair, but I guess that would be against arch's philosophy.

cactus · 2005-03-23 09:25:51

in theory, installing the daemon without having it running should cause little issue. Just take up a tiny bit of space...

iphitus · 2005-03-23 12:26:58

cmp wrote:

two packages isn't an option, is it?
you could also split the mysql package in a server/client pair, but I guess that would be against arch's philosophy.

that kinda wouldnt work, mysql is the server, there is no client. the client is amarok.

dp · 2005-03-23 13:19:29

mysql split into libmysql and mysql would be possible - but it makes it not simplier

after some days this poll will cristalize to one opinion and i will addapt amarok to support it

sear · 2005-03-23 18:24:19

what about making two versions? one with and one without mysql support/dependency?

dp · 2005-03-23 23:15:28

fjleon wrote:

I still think the proper solution is for the amarok developers to change some code that will allow amarok to run if it was compiled with mysql support but it wasn't available on the running system.
Lots of software is coded that way, and then arch only would have to say "this was compiled with mysql support, if you want to use it, pacman -S mysql"
I am going to submit a feature request to see what answers i get

i really like to solve it this way - if they can do it is another question (you need to separate the binary into 2 pieces - make it "modular")

LB06 · 2005-03-24 20:57:12

MySQL support is great. I'm already running a webserver on my laptop (webdev purposes, of course), so I figured I could use mysql with Amarok as well. I have roughly 40GB music and I do see a noticable performance gain. SQLite wasn't bad, it just wasn't as fast.

mico · 2005-03-24 23:30:38

Thank you all for this thread, it is because of this thread that I tried amarok with mysql. And all I can say now is SQLLITE SUCKS!!! As I see amarok, it's greatest power and usability is in handling huge music collections, because you can easily browse the tree view of all your music. For small collections you don't need that, just use any player... Juk for instance. For large collections amarok with sqlite is so damn slow I never really used it as my default player and still sticked with xmms despite its terrible interface. On every song start, stop or skip amarok (without mysql) would eat 100% cpu and freeze for 3-10 seconds. With mysql, it takes only 0-1 second.

The speed of MySQL is awesome and my vote goes for including mysql support in amarok package.

dp · 2005-03-24 23:58:17

it's almost like i had it in mind: one third cannot live without amarok having mysql compiled in - 2 thirds cannot live with amarok having mysql compiled in.

the best solution would be:

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102318

... and if i compare the alternatives, i come to the same result:

1) amarok with mysql:
[+] advantage in performance
[-] mysql is not small

2) amarok without mysql
[-]best i quote one of you: "SQLITE SUCKS"
[+]no mysql needed

in politics i would need to remove mysql from amarok now, because it is 23:11 against it - fortunately this is not politics and i hope that we will find a middle way that makes both sides happy

Snowman · 2005-03-25 02:52:12

dp wrote:

in politics i would need to remove mysql from amarok now, because it is 23:11 against it - fortunately this is not politics and i hope that we will find a middle way that makes both sides happy

I am not an amarok user. However, since the amarok devs seems interested in the "bug", having both an amarok and amarok-mysql package could be a temporary solution which would please everyone.

dp · 2005-03-26 13:48:21

fjleon wrote:

I would like to know what percentage of those mysql users on amarok use ABS. My guess is that they are advanced enough to use it. If compiling 2 packages is too tiresome (bandwidth costs, compiling time, etc) then he could make just one package (non mysql) and release a PKGBUILD with mysql support.
I dont think the kde wishlist i reported will be fixed soon. Making a whole application modular isn't easy.

amarok-mysqlfree is now available for these 2/3rd of you out there

LB06 · 2005-03-27 18:38:59

dp wrote:

fjleon wrote:
I would like to know what percentage of those mysql users on amarok use ABS. My guess is that they are advanced enough to use it. If compiling 2 packages is too tiresome (bandwidth costs, compiling time, etc) then he could make just one package (non mysql) and release a PKGBUILD with mysql support.
I dont think the kde wishlist i reported will be fixed soon. Making a whole application modular isn't easy.
amarok-mysqlfree is now available for these 2/3rd of you out there

Pacman asks everytime I do a -Syu if I want replace amarok with amarok-mysqlfree. This is getting very annoying already. How can I tell pacman I do not want the mysqlfree version? I already tried to add amarok-mysqlfree to HoldPkg, but that does not work.

dp · 2005-03-27 19:00:25

LB06 wrote:

dp wrote:
fjleon wrote:
I would like to know what percentage of those mysql users on amarok use ABS. My guess is that they are advanced enough to use it. If compiling 2 packages is too tiresome (bandwidth costs, compiling time, etc) then he could make just one package (non mysql) and release a PKGBUILD with mysql support.
I dont think the kde wishlist i reported will be fixed soon. Making a whole application modular isn't easy.
amarok-mysqlfree is now available for these 2/3rd of you out there
Pacman asks everytime I do a -Syu if I want replace amarok with amarok-mysqlfree. This is getting very annoying already. How can I tell pacman I do not want the mysqlfree version? I already tried to add amarok-mysqlfree to HoldPkg, but that does not work.

it's because i use replaces=(amarok) in amarok-mysqlfree ... i will change this to conflicts=(amarok) in the next release

LB06 · 2005-03-27 19:13:26

Okay, thanks!

IceRAM · 2005-03-27 21:05:22

Make sure you include a "provides=(amarok)" line for it (if it hasn't got one already). There might be packages (packages with scripts maybe) which (can) depend on amarok.

Out of curiosity, shouldn't a "provides" line cover "conflicts" too? if I write "provides=(something)" for a package then, when I want to install the package on a system which already has "something" installed, it should be automatically treated as a "conflicts" line too. Of course, "conflicts" should not include "provides". This should be uni-directional.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-22 22:02:12

amarok - with or without mysql support

#2 2005-03-22 22:23:32

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#3 2005-03-22 23:18:20

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#4 2005-03-22 23:42:04

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#5 2005-03-22 23:45:37

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#6 2005-03-23 00:15:25

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#7 2005-03-23 00:17:56

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#8 2005-03-23 00:48:19

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#9 2005-03-23 01:04:08

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#10 2005-03-23 01:09:24

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#11 2005-03-23 09:20:55

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#12 2005-03-23 09:25:51

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#13 2005-03-23 12:26:58

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#14 2005-03-23 13:19:29

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#15 2005-03-23 18:24:19

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#16 2005-03-23 23:15:28

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#17 2005-03-24 20:57:12

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#18 2005-03-24 23:30:38

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#19 2005-03-24 23:58:17

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#20 2005-03-25 02:52:12

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#21 2005-03-26 13:48:21

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#22 2005-03-27 18:38:59

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#23 2005-03-27 19:00:25

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#24 2005-03-27 19:13:26

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#25 2005-03-27 21:05:22

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

Board footer