1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>Another useflag-related question. |
4 |
> |
5 |
>Currently, the encode useflag is defined as follow: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>encode - Adds support for MEncoder or LaME encoder, wherever applicable |
8 |
> |
9 |
>this is a loose definition which is quite useless for medium user, as it's |
10 |
>used also in a non-complete-standard way in all ebuilds. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>My proposal is to start using lame useflag to enable lame support (in software |
13 |
>which is just encoding on itself), and using encode with a slight different |
14 |
>definition for example: |
15 |
> |
16 |
>encode - Adds support for encoding files in addiction to decoding |
17 |
> |
18 |
>so that it can be used to enable generic encoding support instead of specific |
19 |
>using lame or mencoder. |
20 |
> |
21 |
>Comments? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> |
24 |
I don't like it. I'm in the group of people that think there are already |
25 |
way too many use flags. I think a better solution is for someone to go |
26 |
ahead and work on getting use flag description info added to the |
27 |
metadata.xml files. It is after all supposed to be extensible isn't it. |
28 |
|
29 |
--Iggy |
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |