amarok - with or without mysql support

Shofs · 2005-03-27 21:34:16

I am going to try using amarok WITH mysql. I want to see how much faster it is. What sql command do I issue to grant my normal user (ryan) acces to the amarok database?

LB06 · 2005-03-28 15:46:36

rmbalfa wrote:

I am going to try using amarok WITH mysql. I want to see how much faster it is. What sql command do I issue to grant my normal user (ryan) acces to the amarok database?

GRANT ALL PERMISSIONS ON dbname.* TO ryan IDENTIFIED BY 'password';

Not entirely sure though. Feel free to correct me.

d3c3it · 2005-04-04 12:09:15

i personally think mysql support is really handy but i've no voted yes, reason being is i can see the point of not using it.

I only recently swapped over to amarok (rhythmbox before) and loved the idea of being able to store my music in my mysql server, as i run mysql server on my laptop(local dev only) and this was really really handy as the speed increase is really noticable, even on only a 10gb collection of oggs.

So as others have suggested a with and without option would be best. How hard is it to add mysql support thou the PKGBUILD??

dp · 2005-04-04 14:09:40

d3c3it wrote:

i personally think mysql support is really handy but i've no voted yes, reason being is i can see the point of not using it.
I only recently swapped over to amarok (rhythmbox before) and loved the idea of being able to store my music in my mysql server, as i run mysql server on my laptop(local dev only) and this was really really handy as the speed increase is really noticable, even on only a 10gb collection of oggs.
So as others have suggested a with and without option would be best. How hard is it to add mysql support thou the PKGBUILD??

hi d3c3it

in the long run i will have amarok-base in extra containing only amarok and then additional packages for engines, visualisation, mysql, whatever (i know that engines can be packed separately now ... amarok splitup into separate pkgs will take place sooner or later but i will do it when i get the time to spend on it) --- this would at least add a virtual dependence called "amarok-engine"

as for now there are:

amarok - amarok with mysql-support
amarok-mysqlfree - amarok without mysql-support
amarok-devel - amarok cvs with mysql-support

i accept ideas and contributions but i want not to discuss any contributed PKGBUILD (for splitup) in this thread - so if you have any solution, email it to me (damir@archlinux.org) and i will test it and accept it if it works how i think it schould

at the moment my other duties are more important and in about 1 to 2 weeks, i will take this matter in attack

till then, stay patient with this intermediate solution ;-)

shiner_man · 2005-04-07 18:30:12

I'm waiting for jinzora2 to become stable so I can use it on my home server. Plus, doesn't amarok use arts?

swooshonln · 2006-11-13 03:27:50

I have a collection of over 1800 Albums, and its just too much for the internal database in amarok to handle. I use mysql to manage my database now and It acts as if I have a collection of only 5 songs.

enr1x · 2006-11-13 18:09:41

Well, i use amarok-svn, so i can handle the deps even more easily. Compilation only takes 10 minutes, so, I don't care about the mysql dependency. I would suggest to remove it, so it would be a more Arch-Linux-esque package,as it would be simplier. Thank you for making Arch Linux better every day!!

Arch Linux

#26 2005-03-27 21:34:16

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#27 2005-03-28 15:46:36

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#28 2005-04-04 12:09:15

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#29 2005-04-04 14:09:40

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#30 2005-04-07 18:30:12

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#31 2006-11-13 03:27:50

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

#32 2006-11-13 18:09:41

Re: amarok - with or without mysql support

Board footer