"Building database...." freezes on Rockbox 3.8

[lestatar]

^ Thanks guys! This is only 1 reason why RB is so great - everyone reporting in and helping the greater cause...

[CrowdAds]

[TuFur]

Originally Posted by Progweed

One of the Rockbox devs gave me a great hint and we were finally able to isolate the database bug:

http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/11965

Guess it will be fixed soon.

My hat goes off to Saratoga for helping this young man. As Saratoga says: Comment by MichaelGiacomelli (saratoga) - Thursday, 10 March 2011, 20:07 GMT+1 >The filesystem is okay, but becomes quite heavily corrupted during the database build process. It's impossible to even boot Rockbox after that.

If this bug is happens everytime, a binary search might be the fastest way to find the broken revision. Theres maybe ~1000 revisions to check, so thats ~10 builds to compile and test.

Make custom builds for people and expect them to work without knowledge of how things work, this should be an example.

[Progweed]

I think your irony is rather inappropriate. I voluntarily offered my help in this case, nobody expected me to do something. Rockbox is a very complex piece of software and Saratoga simply told me how to find the root of the problem in a maintainable amount of time. And it wasn't even necessary to compile 10 builds as sideral already had a reasonable suspicion as to what was going wrong.

[skip252]

Originally Posted by TuFur

Make custom builds for people and expect them to work without knowledge of how things work, this should be an example.

Could you clarify the part about custom builds? You've made comments here and at the Rockbox forums that seem to imply that Progweed's or someone else's custom build was in some way a part of this issue.

Considering that one of the players that I have has never had a custom build installed and still displayed this behavior I'm puzzled. Is it that somehow custom build features affected SVN or the Release version? Some type of link or explanation as to what led to this conclusion would be highly appreciated. Thanks.

[saratoga]

Yeah I wasn't sure what to make of that post.

[Progweed]

Originally Posted by TuFur

Make custom builds for people and expect them to work without knowledge of how things work, this should be an example.

TuFur, if this statement was really directed at me then your post makes even less sense to me than I thought.

I never changed a single line of Rockbox code and the patches I included in my custom build do not interfere with the database in any way. Plus the builds I offered here are a bit older than the recent database problem.

[TuFur]

Originally Posted by Progweed

TuFur, if this statement was really directed at me then your post makes even less sense to me than I thought.

I never changed a single line of Rockbox code and the patches I included in my custom build do not interfere with the database in any way. Plus the builds I offered here are a bit older than the recent database problem.

I should have followed up quickly....I enjoin you in having fun with rockbox. Its very dynamic in while playing in a development atmostphere, one can get lost. The problem I had was wasn't you...it was the lack of differientiation between the common build a new visitor to rockbox and the compilation builds being presented here as being a problem from rockbox when it was the compiler that had the problem. he she it didn't do their do diligence required when compiling old code with new. One has to read the notations when things don't work...but rockbox presents a compiled version on their website....they expect feedback...r29513 only problem if one used the database to find songs...which everyone knows with the hundreds of tag styles is rediculus...but the auto resume based on the database worked. The storage hog file imbedded bmps worked...So...what is you're problem? I just stated you were out of what the normal person would see from Rockbox...I meant no insult...your talking oranges...and I'm talking apples as seen on the page from rockbox.org.

Compiling the source code of rockbox is a rockbox only forum item as seen from this diatribe.

[saratoga]

Originally Posted by TuFur

I should have followed up quickly....I enjoin you in having fun with rockbox. Its very dynamic in while playing in a development atmostphere, one can get lost. The problem I had was wasn't you...it was the lack of differientiation between the common build a new visitor to rockbox and the compilation builds being presented here as being a problem from rockbox when it was the compiler that had the problem. he she it didn't do their do diligence required when compiling old code with new. One has to read the notations when things don't work...but rockbox presents a compiled version on their website....they expect feedback...r29513 only problem if one used the database to find songs...which everyone knows with the hundreds of tag styles is rediculus...but the auto resume based on the database worked. The storage hog file imbedded bmps worked...So...what is you're problem? I just stated you were out of what the normal person would see from Rockbox...I meant no insult...your talking oranges...and I'm talking apples as seen on the page from rockbox.org.

Compiling the source code of rockbox is a rockbox only forum item as seen from this diatribe.

I don't think you understood what was going on. He was troubleshooting a bug introduced in SVN.

[Progweed]

*sigh*


This:

Originally Posted by TuFur

it was the compiler that had the problem

+

Originally Posted by TuFur

I just stated you were out of what the normal person would see from Rockbox...I meant no insult...your talking oranges...and I'm talking apples as seen on the page from rockbox.org.

...is just plain wrong. A great deal of SansaV2 owners experienced problems with both Rockbox 3.8 and earlier daily builds. Have a look at the release notes for v3.8.1 if you don't believe me:

http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes381

But let's keep it at that. It's not that we're discussing particularly important matters here.