Re: how to handle multi value tags?

Petteri Hintsanen <[email protected]> writes:

> =E0=A4=B8=E0=A4=AE=E0=A5=80=E0=A4=B0 =E0=A4=B8=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=82=E0=A4=B9=
 Sameer Singh <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Also on that note, why do we restrict what tags could be written or
>> read from the tag?
>
> If you mean emms-info-native, it reads only those info-tags that are
> somehow utilized in EMMS.  See (info "(emms) Defining Info Methods") for
> a list.
>
> Other info-tags could be read into the metadata cache as well, but at
> the moment there is no use for them.  (Or at least I do not know of
> any.)  So it would be mostly a waste of space.
>
> Tag writing is something I don't know much about.  I deliberately left
> out tag writing from emms-info-native.  There were two reasons: (1)
> read-only was much easier to implement, and (2) with writing, there is
> always a risk of data loss.

My method is to use a lot of custom tags for each track. With the
current way emms is written I will have to maintain a list of each tag I
use in my config, so that they show up in my library. And also
maintain a separate
list so that these tags can then be written in to a track.

>
>> One more question I have is: The tracktag program is used to write
>> metadata to opus files. AFAICS tracktag has not been updated for about
>> 10 years. Can we deprecate that and use something like "opusenc" from th=
e
>> opus-tools package?
>
> I don't see a problem with tracktag not being updated if it still does
> its expected job without fail.  What would be the benefit here?

The audiotools package (which tracktag is a part of) refuses to install
on my archlinux-based system.

In file included from src/encoders/alac.c:3:
src/encoders/alac.c: In function =E2=80=98encode_alac=E2=80=99:
src/encoders/alac.c:209:16: error: implicit declaration of function
=E2=80=98total_frame_sizes=E2=80=99; did you mean =E2=80=98dummy_frame_size=
s=E2=80=99?
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  209 |         assert(total_frame_sizes(actual_sizes) =3D=3D
      |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In debian too, the package has been removed
(https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/audiotools):
>package is gone
>This package is not in any development repository. This probably means
>that the package has been removed (or has been renamed). Thus the
>information here is of little interest ... the package is going to
>disappear unless someone takes it over and reintroduces it.


>
> --
> Petteri