Duncan wrote: > Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:55:01 -0600: > >> The reason we have mp3 and lame use flag is because there is more than >> one mp3 encoder. In almost every case of the use flag being applied >> above, there is already support for another mp3 codec (ffmpeg). So, >> lame adds support for lame, not for mp3, which is also provided. > > In that case, shouldn't the description mention that? Something like: > > MP3 encoding support using LAME (as opposed to ffmpeg) > What about when the next one gets added-- would it need to say "as opposed to ffmpeg or lame"?
I agree where there's a choice, the ebuild should offer lame or ffmpeg or w/e, and where not simply mp3 (along with the encode/decode being orthogonal.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
