| 1 |
Le lundi 06 juillet 2009 à 14:18 -0700, Josh Saddler a écrit : |
| 2 |
> Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> And now for some bikeshedding fun, which flag are we going to keep? ;) |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > My vote would be for cdaudio as that |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > - is more general (including analog playback) |
| 9 |
> > - is more user friendly |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > but let those decide who "implement" it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm also in favor of cdaudio: it's a bit more self-explanatory. I also |
| 14 |
> think it's better to have such a generic description for apps that use |
| 15 |
> libcdio/cdparanoia/cddb combinations, such as the package I maintain, |
| 16 |
> media-sound/decibel-audio-player. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As I said in [1], cdda has a precise meaning and cdaudio is all but a |
| 19 |
blurry alternative. Also your examples are bad because they are blurring |
| 20 |
the definition even more. Are we talking audio cdrom ripping, audio cd |
| 21 |
data retrieving or simple audio cd playing support ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=274818#c1 |
Archives