| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 07:26 +0100, Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> posted 470CD9B5.3000706@g.o, |
| 5 |
> > excerpted below, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:55:01 -0600: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> The reason we have mp3 and lame use flag is because there is more than |
| 8 |
> >> one mp3 encoder. In almost every case of the use flag being applied |
| 9 |
> >> above, there is already support for another mp3 codec (ffmpeg). So, |
| 10 |
> >> lame adds support for lame, not for mp3, which is also provided. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > In that case, shouldn't the description mention that? Something like: |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > MP3 encoding support using LAME (as opposed to ffmpeg) |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> What about when the next one gets added-- would it need to say "as opposed |
| 17 |
> to ffmpeg or lame"? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I agree where there's a choice, the ebuild should offer lame or ffmpeg or |
| 20 |
> w/e, and where not simply mp3 (along with the encode/decode being |
| 21 |
> orthogonal.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
How about: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Prefer using LAME for MP3 encoding support |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It doesn't mention anything else, so it'll work in all cases. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 32 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 33 |
Games Developer/Foundation Trustee |
| 34 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives