Re: Any interest in sox with MP3 support?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Hans de Goede<j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The standard we've come up for this, is to do 2 packages: > > sox-plugins-freeworld > sox-plugins-nonfree > > Which would then have subpackages like this: > sox-plugins-freeworld > sox-plugins-freeworld-mp3 > sox-plugins-freeworld-ffmpeg > sox-plugins-nonfree > sox-plugins-nonfree-amrwb > sox-plugins-nonfree-amrnb > > The main packages could then either completely not > exist (ie no %files only %files mp3 and %files ffmpeg), or > could be empty except for Requiring all the sub packages > for easier installation. With a slight preference > for the later. Hmm... Currently sox fails to build with the ffmpeg in F16 so I haven't included it yet. Also, even if we did, I'm not sure there's much value in breaking it out into individual packages. I would think it unlikely that someone who wants MP3 or ffmpeg support is going to be too worried about the extra dependency overhead of the other. So maybe just sox-plugins-freeworld and sox-plugins-nonfree?