| Summary: | Album artist appears as artist | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] amarok | Reporter: | David K <kohen.d> |
| Component: | Collections/Local | Assignee: | Amarok Developers <amarok-bugs-dist> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version: | 2.0.2 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Ubuntu | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
| Attachments: | The same file in amarok and gtkpod 0.99.14 | ||
|
Description
David K
2009-04-16 15:10:58 UTC
Created attachment 32872 [details]
The same file in amarok and gtkpod 0.99.14
You have to be more specific in general with reports, although I think it can gather that this is a track off an iPod? No, it's just a track I have looked at with gtkpod, it is a normal local file that has both fields (artist and album artist) set in the ID3 tag, both taglib and id3lib read it properly, yet amarok does not. I'm using Ubuntu Jaunty (9.04). I'm a developer as well, and I couldn't think of any more details I should give in this case, if you need any more details, you are more than welcome to ask. Okay, sorry for my bad assumption. Are you able to test Amarok 2.1-beta1? There have already been a few changes with album artist etc. Failing that, maybe you could send me your file so I can test with it. (Although Atomic Kitten might kill me) You won't be able to help me much dead... Is there a GPL/CC audio file that would work to sample this? Beta 1 failed, as I expected. David, I couldn't reproduce this in Amarok. Is it possible that your collection scan was corrupted somehow? I think that this might be a duplicate of the collection scanner bug which was fixed for 2.1. Can you try do a full rescan of the collection? When I tried 2.1 it did a rescan, and the bug appeared, afterwards I reinstalled 2.0.2 and the file seemed OK, maybe one of the library files was corrupted on-disk? My guess is that the scanner bug in 2.0 caused misinformation, and then it lingered during your upgrade to 2.1. You're downgrade simply missed the same fault that the scanner picked up the first time around (since it was a non deterministic bug). If you think that I'm incorrect and can reliably reproduce with 2.1 (even after a full scan) please reopen. Thanks for your help *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 176154 *** |