Hi there, Command line binaries should only do one thing, and do it well. The job of flac (or flac.exe in windows) is to take something and compress it. Shells implement commands to do things like searches, string matching, looping, and stream editing. I wouldn't want to see Josh waste his time re-implementing and having to maintain "dir", "grep", or "find" equivs in flac. These tools already exist, and anyone who has a basic command of an **IX shell is more than capable of one-lining most find/search/sort/exec tasks. flac already handles input from a file, a pipe, and other input sources, and is almost perfect as-is. Frank PS.. The tag line about MS vista probably comes from hotmail (I doubt xiph is doing it). They recently switched to "hotmail live" or some BS like that. I do not endorse MS products and have not worked for them since 2003 (the reason for the attrition of my command line abilities). Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:48:42 +0200 From: tranzedude@gmail.com To: lists@whitehouse.org.nz Subject: Re: [flac] re-encode tool win32 CC: russofris@hotmail.com; flac@xiph.org 2007/9/28, Aaron Whitehouse <lists@whitehouse.org.nz>:> Under linux/bash, it would be something like.... > cd /MusicDirectory > find . -type f -name "*.flac" -exec sh -c 'flac -t {} && flac -8V {}' \;Wouldn't it be nice if it was something closer to: flac --reencode --recursive -8 *.flac I think this would be a great feature, in this way re-encoding in windows, linux, ... can happen the same way without complicated scripts (that maybe even don't work in windows because of crappy wildcard support, ...) are there plans to implement this? It's a clean way to re-encode all files I think. Harry Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20070928/9644d1c2/attachment.htm
2007/9/28, Aaron Whitehouse <lists@whitehouse.org.nz>:> > > Under linux/bash, it would be something like.... > > cd /MusicDirectory > > find . -type f -name "*.flac" -exec sh -c 'flac -t {} && flac -8V {}' > \; > > Wouldn't it be nice if it was something closer to: > flac --reencode --recursive -8 *.flacI think this would be a great feature, in this way re-encoding in windows, linux, ... can happen the same way without complicated scripts (that maybe even don't work in windows because of crappy wildcard support, ...) are there plans to implement this? It's a clean way to re-encode all files I think. Harry Aaron>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20070928/1b7ceb8e/attachment.htm
--- Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com> wrote:> 2007/9/28, Aaron Whitehouse <lists@whitehouse.org.nz>: > > > > > Under linux/bash, it would be something like.... > > > cd /MusicDirectory > > > find . -type f -name "*.flac" -exec sh -c 'flac -t {} && flac > -8V {}' > > \; > > > > Wouldn't it be nice if it was something closer to: > > flac --reencode --recursive -8 *.flac > > I think this would be a great feature, in this way re-encoding in > windows, > linux, ... can happen the same way without complicated scripts (that > maybe > even don't work in windows because of crappy wildcard support, ...) > are there plans to implement this?no, for the exact reason Frank gave. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
> anyone who has a basic command of an **IX shell is more > than capable of one-lining most find/search/sort/exec tasks.That is overstating things a little. I have been using Linux for about five years and I wouldn't have come up with that command on my own. That said, I agree that Josh is better to spend his time writing the encoder (which he does incredibly well). I guess that people who want to do this will find it out eventually :). With any luck, third party tools will step in to provide this kind of functionality, in a user-friendly manner, without distracting Josh. The same argument could be said for the windows FLAC gui - is it just a "distraction" from the core job of upgrading the encoder? To be fair, if it is really that simple, someone that isn't up to working on the encoder could add this feature and Josh wouldn't be distracted at all. There would be no need to "re-implement or maintain "dir", "grep", or "find" equivs in flac" as they could depend on the existing tools. It would not be desirable for the base Flac libraries to depend on these things, however, so I agree that it probably belongs somewhere else. This is all just rambling, really. I now have the answer and can happily use it. I just get annoyed when people tell me that your average simple user could come up with a long command string when, in actual fact, the majority of computer users don't ever see a command line. Thanks for your help, Aaron
To answer the original question, I do not believe that there is. What may be an eloquent solution to this problem is to start a collection of "Flac tools" on sourceforge. These could be command line or gui utilitis, and would reside in a single permanent location. This way we could have actual sh/bat files with proper error checking and such rather than one liners. Back in my windows days, it would take me all of 5-10 minutes to wrap a command line (like the ms example I came up with from /? instructions only) in a VB6 gui app. I am certain that someone with similar new age .net skills probably reads the list, and might not mind doing the same. As for the scripting skill level thing, I did not mean to suggest that computer users would be capable of such a feat. By "basic command of a **IX shell" I meant that they were on the second semester of a scripting 101 course or had completed "scripting for dummies". Once you learn what tools are available (how to loop/iterate, how to nest commands, etc) the rest is just chaining the tools together in a linear fashion to achieve the desired result. Someone put together a tools page, maybe split out flacGUI from the core flac project, and we'll all do our best to extend the tools to make common tasks easier for the users. Frank> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:06:03 +0200 > From: tranzedude@gmail.com > To: lists@whitehouse.org.nz > Subject: Re: [flac] re-encode tool win32 > CC: russofris@hotmail.com; flac@xiph.org > > but to return to my original question: is there a graphical tool to > re-encode directories (and subdir's inside of them) for win32? > > because otherwise windows are still 'stuck' when they want to do that. > I agree entering such long command line strings is not user friendly, > so i'm looking for a tool if this exists > > thx for your attention > > 2007/9/29, Aaron Whitehouse <lists@whitehouse.org.nz>: > > > anyone who has a basic command of an **IX shell is more > > > than capable of one-lining most find/search/sort/exec tasks. > > > > That is overstating things a little. I have been using Linux for about > > five years and I wouldn't have come up with that command on my own. > > > > That said, I agree that Josh is better to spend his time writing the > > encoder (which he does incredibly well). I guess that people who want > > to do this will find it out eventually :). With any luck, third party > > tools will step in to provide this kind of functionality, in a > > user-friendly manner, without distracting Josh. The same argument > > could be said for the windows FLAC gui - is it just a "distraction" > > from the core job of upgrading the encoder? > > > > To be fair, if it is really that simple, someone that isn't up to > > working on the encoder could add this feature and Josh wouldn't be > > distracted at all. There would be no need to "re-implement or maintain > > "dir", "grep", or "find" equivs in flac" as they could depend on the > > existing tools. It would not be desirable for the base Flac libraries > > to depend on these things, however, so I agree that it probably > > belongs somewhere else. > > > > This is all just rambling, really. I now have the answer and can > > happily use it. I just get annoyed when people tell me that your > > average simple user could come up with a long command string when, in > > actual fact, the majority of computer users don't ever see a command > > line. > > > > Thanks for your help, > > > > Aaron > >_________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20070928/1827fa26/attachment.htm