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?
Richard