Music Manager that supports flac?

[Weedman]

If you're happy, I'm happy.

As for the question, I'm not sure exactly what you mean (I haven't ever used iTunes). Do you mean organising your files' physical directory/filename structure?

Yep. Like for example I have a file called slayer-raining blood.mp3. Slayer is the artist, rein in blood is the album, and raining blood is the track name.

I want it sorted <root folder>/Slayer/reign in blood/raining blood.mp3

I think that is what you are on about.

[Sykotik]

Yep. Like for example I have a file called slayer-raining blood.mp3. Slayer is the artist, rein in blood is the album, and raining blood is the track name.

I want it sorted <root folder>/Slayer/reign in blood/raining blood.mp3

I think that is what you are on about.

http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/wiki/Guide/Renaming

I think that should answer your question.

~P

[Weedman]

http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/wiki/Guide/Renaming

I think that should answer your question.

~P

Thanks, that was very handy.

But can that be done mass-ly. I have about 200 files I need to do that to.
And how would you use that function in quod libet? would it be through the tag information dialog?

I am thinking that I probably should use ex falso for this...

[Sykotik]

Thanks, that was very handy.

But can that be done mass-ly. I have about 200 files I need to do that to.
And how would you use that function in quod libet? would it be through the tag information dialog?

I am thinking that I probably should use ex falso for this...

Yup. You can do multiple track selection in any of the views in QL (paned browser, FS browser, album browser, et al). Right clicking on the selection and selecting the "Edit Tags" option will give you a dialog with one tab labelled "Rename Files". You should be able to do your magic from there. Personally I haven't used this function before for directories; I'm simply in the habit of creating the directory structure on my own. Only use the renaming for the filenames itself.

Aaaanyway, Ex Falso? Mmmmmnot really. Well, not necessarily, anyway. QL and EF are one and the same: Ex Falso is simply without playback functionality. With regards to interface, QL is more centred on the media library, whereas EF is more centred on the FS only. So it depends on what you want to do, I guess.

Also, editing stuff in QL automagically updates your media library as well. No need to rescan/refresh it after doing lots of renaming and whatnot.

</longwindedpost>

[Weedman]

It is possible to do it for directories, why not use it?

I only mentioned Ex Falso, as it appeared to me to be a fairly-fully fledged tagging program. And it installed with Quod libet.

Hey, that wasn't a long winded post, rather very informal.

Thank you immensely, you have been very helpful to me.

~the weedman

[Sykotik]

It is possible to do it for directories, why not use it?

I only mentioned Ex Falso, as it appeared to me to be a fairly-fully fledged tagging program. And it installed with Quod libet.

Hey, that wasn't a long winded post, rather very informal.

Thank you immensely, you have been very helpful to me.

~the weedman

The force of habit is a strong one. Mostly I'm just very particular about these kinds of things. Explains why I'm running Gentoo, I suppose.

Anyway, glad to have helped. If you need anything else just shout.

[Weedman]

Thanks again.

Hey, a random question. (if you did) How big is the download for openoffice-bin? I don't want to compile it from source again, that took me 9 1/2 hours.

Thanks again,
~weed

[Sykotik]

Thanks again.

Hey, a random question. (if you did) How big is the download for openoffice-bin? I don't want to compile it from source again, that took me 9 1/2 hours.

Thanks again,
~weed

mrhandy http-replicator # ls -lh *OOo*
-rw-r--r-- 1 portage portage  77M Oct 17  2005 OOo_1.1.5_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 portage portage 102M Nov 30 09:15 OOo_2.0.0_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 portage portage 105M Jan 29 13:24 OOo_2.0.1_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 portage portage 117M Mar 20 20:52 OOo_2.0.2_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz

[Weedman]

Thanks, you are a legend!

I thought i'd pop in that question, cause I can remember portage quoting the download at 4GB.

Once again, you have been helpful to me. Thanks a lot!

~weed

[spencerf]

Originally Posted by package.keywords
=media-sound/quodlibet-0.20.1-r1 ~x86
=media-libs/mutagen-1.2 ~x86
=dev-python/ctypes-0.9.2 ~x86
=dev-python/gst-python-0.10.2 ~x86
=dev-python/feedparser-4.0.2 ~x86
=media-libs/gstreamer-0.10.6 ~x86
=media-libs/gst-plugins-base-0.10.7 ~x86
=media-libs/gst-plugins-good-0.10.2 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-alsa-0.10.4 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-vorbis-0.10.4 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-ogg-0.10.4 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-gconf-0.10.3 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-mad-0.10.3 ~x86
=media-plugins/gst-plugins-flac-0.10.2 ~x86

just so so you know the "best" method for unmasking keywords for a package would be EITHER to replace the = sign in the above quote with ~ because this will unmask any version you specifiy plus any revisions. So for example with media-plugins/gst-plugins-flac-0.10.2 it would pull in media-plugins/gst-plugins-flac-0.10.2-r1 or anyother subsequent revision. Also if you want all version of gst-plugins-flac to be testing just use media-plugins-gst-flac and don't add version numbers. So your list would look like this:

Originally Posted by package.keywords
media-sound/quodlibet ~x86
media-libs/mutagen ~x86
dev-python/ctypes ~x86
dev-python/gst-python ~x86
dev-python/feedparser ~x86
media-libs/gstreamer ~x86
media-libs/gst-plugins-base ~x86
media-libs/gst-plugins-good ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-alsa ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-vorbis ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-ogg ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-gconf ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-mad ~x86
media-plugins/gst-plugins-flac ~x86

really the only time you want to use "=" or "~" is under /etc/portage/package.unmask for a specific version like for example I have gcc 4.1 unmasked I use the ~ so when 4.1-r1 comes out it install that to. But under package.keywords I would just have gcc no version number