Xmms Rather Than Audacious?

[Enverex]

I'm sure there is a good reason for this but I've not seen an explanation anywhere. So I'm just wondering why the long dead XMMS has been ported but not the active/live fork Audacious? Seemed more logical to port the one that is still going with development still going on.

Only reason I can think of is that XMMS for ARM already existed so that was used, but I'm just looking for clarification there.

 

[PhonicUK]

I agree with the general sentiment here. I much prefer the GTK2 based Audacious, XMMS using GTK1 feels a bit luggish and unwieldy these days. It also doesn't integrate properly into the desktop. I can't see why Audacious would require any more than a recompile for ARM though...

I'm sure someone will do it soon enough.

 

[gruso]

I think it's because XMMS was already in the Angstrom repo. A search on the Angstrom site turns up XMMS, but not Audacious. Have a browse here:

http://www.angstrom-...ution.org/repo/

Audacious seems like a worthy addition to the port request page though, you could put it up if you're so inclined. http://pandorawiki.org/Port_Requests

 

[Etinin]

All I know is that I'm not using either.
I will port Amarok myself if needed.

 

[Enverex]

I think it's because XMMS was already in the Angstrom repo. A search on the Angstrom site turns up XMMS, but not Audacious. Have a browse here:

http://www.angstrom-...ution.org/repo/

Audacious seems like a worthy addition to the port request page though, you could put it up if you're so inclined. http://pandorawiki.org/Port_Requests

Done, I've added Audacious and UADE. I'll add anything else I believe may be portable and has source available as and when I find them.

 

[viridior]

Gentoo has audacious in the portage tree and shouldn't be a problem (although it has been compiled yet, I'll get to it).

 

[viridior]

Sorry, Audacious has NOT been compiled yet in our binary repo. I would have edited my original post, but it seems the new theme doesn't play nice with IE6. :/

 

[Ravnos]

All I know is that I'm not using either.
I will port Amarok myself if needed.

Amarok 1.4, I hope. Amarok 2 is a god damned crime against humanity. I still haven't found a good replacement for 1.4, and I've been looking, god damn it.

 

[AireTamStorm]

All I know is that I'm not using either.
I will port Amarok myself if needed.

Amarok 1.4, I hope. Amarok 2 is a god damned crime against humanity. I still haven't found a good replacement for 1.4, and I've been looking, god damn it.

There are some nice things about AmaroK 2. Going forward, it will eventually be the superior player. Take your complaints / concerns to the AmaroK forum, like thousands of others have. The AmaroK developers aren't ignorant of the community fury going on over the UI layout. For me, the UI wasn't terrible, but it wasn't as good as 1.4's. Personally, the feature I most miss is MySQL support.

I'll be recompiling AmaroK 2, mainly for Phonon / Solid.

 

[Prometheus]

Just on the matter of Amarok, if you'll pardon my slight off-topicness; Does anyone else here use Minirok? It's modelled on Amarok 1.4, and it's rather handy for times when I just want to play through a specific directory of tunes.

 

[Nation.A.List]

Is it only me, or does anybody else misread the title as; "XMAS, Rather Audacious" I'm thinking..... I haven't seen any crackers in the shops yet!