Bug#227501: acknowledged by developer (Re: suddenly ignores .gnome2/rhythmbox/iradio-2.2.xml content)

[Martin-Éric Racine]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Sebastien Bacher wrote:

> Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi> writes:
> 
> > You definitely are not.  
> 
> Sorry but you're not clear with your explanations, so don't throw the
> fault of other people. You were talking about a file not used by rb 0.6!

Hard to know which files are used when:

1) there is no MAN page; such a page would normally tell which files are used.
2) the Yelp manual does not tell either.

Users should not be expected to go thru source code to find out what file it is.

> > Whichever file was previously holding the content, it stoped working be=
tween
> > 0.6.x and 0.6.3, not between 0.5.x and 0.6.x.
> 
> Why not giving this detail in the bug report ? 

Well, I _did_ say that since upgrading to 0.6.3, a few days ago.  However, you
are correct that I did not specify from which version.

> "Version: 0.6.3-1
> Since this version .."
> 
> Previous package version was 0.6.1, so this sentence was saying "between
> 0.6.1 and 0.6.3".

In practice, yes.

> > As such, I really don't care which file would be the correct one; 
> 
> So don't throw wrong filenames on the bug report.

I did not.  See the paragraph below.  To rephrase it:  Looking at the content of
.gnome2/rhythmbox only showed radio stations in iradio-2.2.xml and there was NO
WAY a user should be expected to guess that configs moved around.

> > Rhythmbox just
> > gave me empty playlists after an upgrade from 0.6.x to 0.6.3; it used t=
o work
> > then suddenly gave me empty content; it worked one day and was broken t=
he next,
> > hence the bug report.
> 
> That's a better description of the problem : versions concerned,
> description of the problem, and not wrong informations.
> 
> So after the upgrade all the lists were empty (music and radios) ?

Yup.

> I'll talk about that with the devels. BTW changing the users' files on
> during a package update is not possible ...

That's correct, but having the application itself upgrade a user's files, the
next time it is executed, definitely could be done.

> Thanks for the details,

Welcome.

Btw, asking for more details is always a better approach than routinely closing
down reports even before you have verified that the user meant what you assumed
he did and that he could have know about possible changes in the software. :)

In this case, the change file showed nothing special between previous 0.6.x
versions and 0.6.3, so the only conclusion I could come up to is that some
config file had been ignored, possibly because of PPC-port related bugs.

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine, ICT Consultant
http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~q-funk/