| 1 |
I, as a regular user, second this. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Before we had a 'bzlib' USE-flag, and now it is 'bzip2', which is more |
| 4 |
user-friendlier for users to understand. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Friday 23 December 2005 03:52, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 7 |
> On Thursday 22 December 2005 20:14, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 8 |
> > Query: Which would be more appropriate in this case? "jasper" for the |
| 9 |
> > library it pulls in as a depend, or "jpeg2k" for the functionality that |
| 10 |
> > library provides? There's nothing else in the tree (as far as I can |
| 11 |
> > tell) which provides JPEG-2000, but there could be. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It is imho a _problem_ when use flags are _unnecessarily_ named after the |
| 14 |
> library instead the provided functionality. When there are two libs doing |
| 15 |
> the same thing, a single use flag should suffice: Less use flags mean |
| 16 |
> reduced complexity for the user, who likely will understand what "jpeg2k" |
| 17 |
> means, but not "jasper". Which leads me to the next issue; Often you can |
| 18 |
> read: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> foo - enables support for $category/foo |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Such a description is as good as none. To give a sample how it should be: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> jpeg2k - Support for JPEG 2000, a wavelet-based image compression format. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Carsten |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
С уважением, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Медер Бакиров |
Archives