| 1 |
audio-* sound better. |
| 2 |
graphics-* sounds better, if I suggested gfx it was just it's how we |
| 3 |
have it now in media-gfx (I never liked that either). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I also think that media-* can stay. So, something like this would be |
| 6 |
closer, I guess. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
graphics-viewers |
| 9 |
graphics-editors |
| 10 |
graphics-plugins |
| 11 |
graphics-libs |
| 12 |
audio-players (and maybe sound-radio) |
| 13 |
audio-editors |
| 14 |
audio-plugins |
| 15 |
audio-libs |
| 16 |
media-players (and, maybe, only maybe video-tv) |
| 17 |
media-editors |
| 18 |
media-plugins |
| 19 |
media-libs |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As I said above, some libraries might not be easy to fit in a single |
| 22 |
category, so it might be necessary to just keep all of them under |
| 23 |
media-libs. I am not sure. What I'd really love would be to get a |
| 24 |
mechanism into portage so that a package can be in many categories at |
| 25 |
the same time because, well, is gwenview a viewer or an editor? Is |
| 26 |
kaffeine a media-player or a tv receiver? Is ffmpeg a media-lib, a |
| 27 |
sound-editor or a sound-lib? You get the idea. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Roughly, one way to achieve this could be by using symlinks along with |
| 30 |
virtuals, but that's another entirely different thing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Jesús Guerrero Botella |
Archives