[gentoo-dev] Re: MP4 global use flag
Steve Dibb [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:56 -0600: Any objections to moving MP4 from a local to a global USE flag. For the record, MP4 is a multimedia container to store multiple audio/video formats in. Currently we have 4 ebuilds using it, all for the same description. Hasn't the suggested cut-over been five packages? At four, it's getting close, but isn't there yet. Now AFAIK that's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Is there some reason to override the guideline? Or are you suggesting the guideline should be lowered to four or even three? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] MP4 global use flag
Steve Dibb wrote: Any objections to moving MP4 from a local to a global USE flag. For the record, MP4 is a multimedia container to store multiple audio/video formats in. Currently we have 4 ebuilds using it, all for the same description. 4 doesn't sound quite worthy of global, yet. However, there are 70-someodd packages that use aac -- and they all seem to be for mp4 audio in some form, more or less. Is it worthwhile to just s/mp4/aac, or vice versa? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] MP4 global use flag
Josh Saddler wrote: Steve Dibb wrote: Any objections to moving MP4 from a local to a global USE flag. For the record, MP4 is a multimedia container to store multiple audio/video formats in. Currently we have 4 ebuilds using it, all for the same description. 4 doesn't sound quite worthy of global, yet. However, there are 70-someodd packages that use aac -- and they all seem to be for mp4 audio in some form, more or less. Is it worthwhile to just s/mp4/aac, or vice versa? container != codec, it's a common misconception. :) Steve -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] License groups
While portage-2.2 has support for license visibility filtering (aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) this currently isn't very usable as we still don't have the necessary default license group and ACCEPT_LICENSE setting in the tree (and even the only existing license group is of questionable use, see bug #228527). So if you care about this feature I'd like to ask you to collect the necessary information to make it usable. This mainly means to create a list of licenses that should be accepted by default. The recommended way to do this is to list the licenses that can not be accepted by default (legally), and trying to classify the rest into more managable groups. See bugs #152593 and #17367 for background information. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
