On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 08:14:26 (EDT), Fabian Greffrath wrote:

> Am 05.07.2010 13:35, schrieb jida...@jidanni.org:
>> Just say "This version of ffmpeg is NOT compiled against ... "
>> or This package differs from the default compilation in that ..."
> There is no such thing like a "default compilation" but anyway, the
> package descriptions could be improved to reflect the fact that we skip
> certain encoders.
> Reinhard, what do you say?

and moreover, lame has always been an optional feature of ffmpeg. since
there is no lame in debian, why is it noteworthy that ffmpeg has not
been compiled against a package that is not even available in debian?

the right fix is to get lame accepted into debian.

moreover, jidanni didn't provide a proper patch. The wording 'compiled
against' doesn't fit the problem.

Having said this, I do think that the description could and probably
should be improved.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to