| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:55:29 -0700 |
| 2 |
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 18/09/2012 16:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Let me just say that as a user, concerning this technology |
| 6 |
> > aggregate, I really don't care, it has to "just work" :). Now if |
| 7 |
> > you gather enough momentum to split this flag and make other people |
| 8 |
> > on this list agree with you, I'll be just fine with it :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'd be positive to splitting them. Especially because for instance in |
| 11 |
> an office you might care about port forwarding but won't care about |
| 12 |
> DLNA. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Speaking of which, renaming (where applicable) upnp to dlna might be |
| 15 |
> more user friendly since usually you have the feature _advertised_ as |
| 16 |
> DLNA, not as UPnP! |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Just to make it clear: |
| 19 |
- USE=upnp for upnp-igd or nat-pmp, |
| 20 |
- USE=dlna for the video magic and so on. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Do I understand correctly? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives