| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Dnia 2015-01-19, o godz. 23:09:55 |
| 4 |
> Rémi Cardona <remi@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Why not : |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > libav? ( media-libs/libav:= ) |
| 9 |
> > ffmpeg? ( media-libs/ffmpeg:= ) |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > + REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( libav ffmpeg )" |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I for one would never expect USE=-libav to enable ffmpeg (nor |
| 14 |
> > USE=-ffmpeg to enable libav FWIW). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Two reasons: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1. Compatibility. USE=ffmpeg is already used for || ( libav ffmpeg ) in |
| 19 |
> a lot of packages. If we changed the meaning, libav users will end up |
| 20 |
> switching '-ffmpeg libav' per-package. Ugly. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
There are only 61 packages with USE="ffmpeg", and quite few of those might |
| 24 |
reasonably have package.use different from make.conf. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> 2. Feature-oriented flags. USE=ffmpeg represents the generic feature, |
| 28 |
> USE=libav is auxiliary implementation-switch flag. Well, maybe we could |
| 29 |
> use, say, USE=avcodec to avoid ambiguity but that's a larger change. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So, it is then expected to have both (USE="ffmpeg libav") to enable the |
| 33 |
feature and then select the implementation? That's quite counter-intuitive, |
| 34 |
and in some cases, there are some significant API differences - it is not |
| 35 |
just a drop-in "auxiliary implementation". |
Archives