1 |
On Saturday, July 31, 2010 16:02:51 Steve Dibb wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/31/2010 12:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2010 14:27:14 Jacob Godserv wrote: |
4 |
> >> Honestly not sure what convention is for naming, but I found this |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> recently, and thought I might throw it out there: |
7 |
> >> ~ $ euse -i lame |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> .... |
10 |
> >> [+ C ] lame - Prefer using LAME libraries for MP3 encoding support |
11 |
> >> .... |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> While, as a user, I prefer this to be mp3, I also understand there may |
14 |
> >> be more than one library for such-and-so, so I'm willing to read up on |
15 |
> >> USE flags to find out which is the best to use. Overall, I would prefer |
16 |
> >> naming according to the names of the libraries they'll enable. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > that example isnt relevant. notice how the description includes the word |
19 |
> > "prefer" and isnt just "enable mp3 support". |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The description is misleading, and needs to be changed. Just because |
22 |
> something has an mp3 and a lame use flag, it does not mean that flipping |
23 |
> on lame means that the application will prefer lame over mad or mpg123. |
24 |
|
25 |
sounds like a bug in the package, or the package metadata.xml needs updating. |
26 |
the current lame desc sounds fine to me. |
27 |
-mike |