From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 20 17:10:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF19C106566B for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:10:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net [68.230.241.216]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F518FC15 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:10:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110820171012.LFAY32549.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:10:12 -0400 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.83.25]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id NhAA1h0090YnB6A02hABPm; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:10:12 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.4E4FEA74.001D,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=L18tZtgXvCjggtrPsn7EqxywmDwdeqj6Yva+6kM3mdg= c=1 sm=1 a=AHD3wGNpyZoA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:17 a=YqRfAJJkAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=JLbnkdvtqWpHDtNEWsQA:9 a=4vXEsvBUh6Sked_T5i8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=UIDpq6-GphUA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p7KHA6NK054237; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:10:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:10:01 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Tijl Coosemans Message-ID: <20110820121001.654aa63d@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <201108201022.36963.tijl@coosemans.org> References: <20110817004913.792c125d@serene.no-ip.org> <201108201022.36963.tijl@coosemans.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amarok doesn't support id3v2? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:10:21 -0000 On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:22:28 +0200 Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Wednesday 17 August 2011 07:49:13 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > I made a rather startling discovery tonight while playing with > > amarok 1.4.10 and the id3v2 port. It seems that if I modify an MP3 > > files's id3 tags in amarok, it deletes any existing id3v2 tags, > > leaving only id3v1 tags on the file (as verified with the id3v2 > > command line tool). > > > > This just seems wrong to me. If I understand correctly, taglib, > > which is used by amarok, does support id3v2, so why isn't amarok > > taking advantage of this facility? > > > > I rebuilt and reinstalled amarok, just to see if it would make any > > difference, but I'm still seeing the same behavior. > > > > I also installed and tried the audio/juk port (also one the of KDE3 > > multimedia family of packages, and also using taglib), and am > > seeing the same thing there as well. No id3v2 tags, only id3v1. > > > > What's up with this? Anyone? > > I suspect taglib uses id3v2.4 whereas id3lib (used by id3v2 port) only > supports id3v2.3. Ah, interesting. Hadn't considered such a possibility. Still, I'm puzzled. If I take a perfectly tagged file, modify it in any way inside amarok, and then try to view the tags again using the command line tool id3v2, all the id3v2 tags have been blown away. Is there that radical a change between the ID3 spec version 2.3 and 2.4 that the tags would be completely unrecognizable anymore by id3v2? Thanks for the response. -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net