Re: Sound Juicer change...

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 3/19/06, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> Le dimanche 19 mars 2006 à 18:56 +0000, Ross Burton a écrit :
> > On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 19:01 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > > So that's what I want to do.  If I get this into 2.14.1 then people
> > > > shipping 2.14 can have a Sound Juicer that correctly tags MP3 files,
> > > > otherwise it's broken.
> > >
> > > Why is it broken right now? Isn't it fixable?
> >
> > Sound Juicer currently tells users how to create a MP3 profile if they want
> > to encode to MP3 files.  This pipeline uses LAME, and it turns out that Lame
> > is just fundamentally broken for tagging: IIRC it only supports ID3v1 tags
> > (which are very limited) and whilst it writes 4K blocks for writing ID3v2
> > tags into, has no way of going back and actually writing them.  This
> > results in freaky LAMELAMELAME chunks in the middle of MPEG data, meaning no
> > decent tags and occasional decoding problems.
> >
> > The solution is to use id3mux (in gst-ugly) or taglibid3mux (in -bad, but
> > will be promoted to -good soon and aliased to id3mux).  However few people
> > actually have these plugins at the moment, thus the suggestion for SJ to
> > host a private id3mux (a copy of taglibid3mux) and use it if a system plugin
> > isn't available.
>
> If taglibid3mux will be promoted to -good soon, then people will have
> the plugin and I don't really see the point of adding this to
> sound-juicer (apart from releasing a new tarball in the next few days
> for this issue).

Will it be in -good in 0.10.x of gstreamer; will it be out in time for
Gnome 2.14.1?

> I'm not really fond of this, but other people in the release team might
> agree with you.

How big is a copy of id3mux?  Am I correct in understanding that it's
a temporary 2.14.x solution to an ugly bug; a solution that shouldn't
have any ill side-effects other than bloat?