On Tuesday 27 January 2009 22:50:59 Paul Hartman wrote:
> Overall I would say at this poin, other than the Last.fm support, I
> prefer the old Amarok in almost every way to the new one. UI was
> better, performance was better, display of collection was better.
> Maybe there are some new features t
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Damian wrote:
> Thanks Paul and Alan for your advices.
>
> OT:
> For me it's hard to drop amarok because I cannot find all of its
> funtionality in one player. For now I'm using mpd+sonata. They're
> great, but it's just not the same. I guess eventually I'll make m
Thanks Paul and Alan for your advices.
OT:
For me it's hard to drop amarok because I cannot find all of its
funtionality in one player. For now I'm using mpd+sonata. They're
great, but it's just not the same. I guess eventually I'll make my own
player :P
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Alan McK
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 22:51:34 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 20:52:03 Andrew Gaydenko wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 January 2009 21:40:29 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > And many many other quirks, too many to mention. As a player, it plays
> > > OK - sound does come out of the speak
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 20:52:03 Andrew Gaydenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 21:40:29 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > And many many other quirks, too many to mention. As a player, it plays OK
> > - sound does come out of the speakers. But players are commodity apps
> > these days. Dump one, us
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 21:40:29 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 18:35:07 Damian wrote:
> > > I almost forgot - trying to emerge amarok2.0.1.1 is almost guaranteed
> > > to fail due to the amarok devs have no clue as to how mysql is built,
> > > plus other errors:
> >
> > Indee
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 18:35:07 Damian wrote:
> > I almost forgot - trying to emerge amarok2.0.1.1 is almost guaranteed to
> > fail due to the amarok devs have no clue as to how mysql is built, plus
> > other errors:
>
> Indeed. I think it's time for me to drop one more kde app.
>
> > http://bu
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Damian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What does it means when the ~amd64 is not one of the keywords used to
> mask the package?
>
> The problem I have is that I would like to install amarok 2 but I
> cannot unmask it by accepting ~amd64. It is safe to unmask it using
> ~x86 e
> I almost forgot - trying to emerge amarok2.0.1.1 is almost guaranteed to fail
> due to the amarok devs have no clue as to how mysql is built, plus other
> errors:
Indeed. I think it's time for me to drop one more kde app.
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=238487
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/
On Friday 23 January 2009 12:06:43 Damian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > On Friday 23 January 2009 11:11:18 Damian wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> What does it means when the ~amd64 is not one of the keywords used to
> >> mask the package?
> >>
> >> The problem I
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 23 January 2009 11:11:18 Damian wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> What does it means when the ~amd64 is not one of the keywords used to
>> mask the package?
>>
>> The problem I have is that I would like to install amarok 2 but I
>> cannot unm
On Friday 23 January 2009 11:11:18 Damian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What does it means when the ~amd64 is not one of the keywords used to
> mask the package?
>
> The problem I have is that I would like to install amarok 2 but I
> cannot unmask it by accepting ~amd64. It is safe to unmask it using
> ~x86
Hello,
What does it means when the ~amd64 is not one of the keywords used to
mask the package?
The problem I have is that I would like to install amarok 2 but I
cannot unmask it by accepting ~amd64. It is safe to unmask it using
~x86 even though my system is amd64?
Thanks in advance.
Best,
Dami
13 matches
Mail list logo
