2011/6/21 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>:
> Hello,
>
> As we discussed for a while, the media-sound/ category has grown very
> large and it may be a good idea to split it.
>
> Right now, it contains audio players, editing software, converters,
> sound systems and a lot of other utilities related to sound. Splitting
> that up would make looking up software easier for users (e.g. if I want
> to take a look at what audio players we have, I don't need to see all
> other programs).
>
> What do you think? What new category/-ies do you suggest?

I'd been always against the current classification. It's a bit
confusing to me (it's just my -very subjective- view, of course).

I'd gladly remove the "media-" thing as a whole, and do something like:

gfx-viewers
gfx-editors
gfx-plugins
gfx-libs
sound-players (and maybe sound-radio)
sound-editors
sound-plugins
sound-libs
video-players (and, maybe, only maybe video-tv)
video-editors
video-plugins
video-libs

Then move fonts elsewhere or just leave them as they are.

This is just a big picture though. I don't know if the degree of
granularity that you get with (i.e.) sdl can be achieved with other
libs, so some libs might fit into all of gfx-libs, sound-libs and
video-libs.

Just my random thought, as a mere long-time gentoo user.

--
Jesús Guerrero Botella

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:40:59 +0200
Jesús J. Guerrero Botella <jesus.guerrero.botella@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then move fonts elsewhere or just leave them as they are.

x11-fonts? :P

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

On 06/21/2011 08:40 AM, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote:

2011/6/21 Michał Górny<mgorny@gentoo.org>:

Hello,

As we discussed for a while, the media-sound/ category has grown very
large and it may be a good idea to split it.

Right now, it contains audio players, editing software, converters,
sound systems and a lot of other utilities related to sound. Splitting
that up would make looking up software easier for users (e.g. if I want
to take a look at what audio players we have, I don't need to see all
other programs).

What do you think? What new category/-ies do you suggest?


I'd been always against the current classification. It's a bit
confusing to me (it's just my -very subjective- view, of course).

I'd gladly remove the "media-" thing as a whole, and do something like:

gfx-viewers
gfx-editors
gfx-plugins
gfx-libs
sound-players (and maybe sound-radio)
sound-editors
sound-plugins
sound-libs
video-players (and, maybe, only maybe video-tv)
video-editors
video-plugins
video-libs


I think 'audio' works better than 'sound' for category prefix of
audio/sound related apps.


Also, leave video-* in media-video/ and media-libs/ They can fit fine
in there. Plus video-players are multimedia players (they don't play
back just video, for instance).


Steve

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:21:44 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:40:59 +0200
> Jesús J. Guerrero Botella <jesus.guerrero.botella@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then move fonts elsewhere or just leave them as they are.
>
> x11-fonts? :P
>

Why? Fonts may not be related to X or any graphical interface;
they're used to display subtitles in media players or render documents
with TeX & cie.

A.

Steve Dibb posted on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:55:08 -0600 as excerpted:

> On 06/21/2011 08:40 AM, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote:
>> 2011/6/21 Michał Górny<mgorny@gentoo.org>:

>>> media-sound/ category has grown very large and [could be split].
>>> [i]t contains audio players, editing software, converters,
>>> sound systems and a lot of other utilities

>>> What new category/-ies do you suggest?

>> I'd gladly remove the "media-" thing as a whole, and do something like:
>>
>> gfx-viewers gfx-editors gfx-plugins gfx-libs sound-players sound-radio?
>> sound-editors sound-plugins sound-libs video-players video-tv?
>> video-editors video-plugins video-libs
>
> I think 'audio' works better than 'sound' for category prefix of
> audio/sound related apps.

++ to audio-xxxx

IMO gfx-xxxx looks like some texting/personal shortcut,
not appropriately professional for a (meta-)distro like gentoo.

graphics-xxxx would be quite reasonable, however.

> Also, leave video-* in media-video/ and media-libs/ They can fit fine
> in there. Plus video-players are multimedia players (they don't play
> back just video, for instance).

Right. mplayer, xine, etc, work just fine as for instance mp3 players.
So media-xxxx is fine for them.

Plus that means we don't have to either leave media-fonts orphaned or
find something else appropriate for it.

--
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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:29:23 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> >> gfx-viewers gfx-editors gfx-plugins gfx-libs sound-players
> >> sound-radio? sound-editors sound-plugins sound-libs video-players
> >> video-tv? video-editors video-plugins video-libs
> >
> > I think 'audio' works better than 'sound' for category prefix of
> > audio/sound related apps.
>
> ++ to audio-xxxx
>
> IMO gfx-xxxx looks like some texting/personal shortcut,
> not appropriately professional for a (meta-)distro like gentoo.

Like in 'media-gfx'? :P

> > Also, leave video-* in media-video/ and media-libs/ They can fit
> > fine in there. Plus video-players are multimedia players (they
> > don't play back just video, for instance).
>
> Right. mplayer, xine, etc, work just fine as for instance mp3
> players. So media-xxxx is fine for them.

But probably we'll move it into media-players and so on then.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Michał Górny posted on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:37:46 +0200 as excerpted:

>> IMO gfx-xxxx looks like some texting/personal shortcut,
>> not appropriately professional for a (meta-)distro like gentoo.
>
> Like in 'media-gfx'? :P

The initial gfx is rather worse, but yes. Just as the devmanual states
about the changelog, package categories should be "proper" English
(words). So *wtf* and *gfx* are equally inappropriate. IMO, of course.

(It's worth noting that the above opinion doesn't extend to individual
package names, however. If the authors of a program are fine with
calling it the gimp (the gfx tool), or clit (convert-lit, an ebook
converter), or whatever, fine with me.)

--
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

audio-* sound better.
graphics-* sounds better, if I suggested gfx it was just it's how we
have it now in media-gfx (I never liked that either).

I also think that media-* can stay. So, something like this would be
closer, I guess.

graphics-viewers
graphics-editors
graphics-plugins
graphics-libs
audio-players (and maybe sound-radio)
audio-editors
audio-plugins
audio-libs
media-players (and, maybe, only maybe video-tv)
media-editors
media-plugins
media-libs

As I said above, some libraries might not be easy to fit in a single
category, so it might be necessary to just keep all of them under
media-libs. I am not sure. What I'd really love would be to get a
mechanism into portage so that a package can be in many categories at
the same time because, well, is gwenview a viewer or an editor? Is
kaffeine a media-player or a tv receiver? Is ffmpeg a media-lib, a
sound-editor or a sound-lib? You get the idea.

Roughly, one way to achieve this could be by using symlinks along with
virtuals, but that's another entirely different thing.

--
Jesús Guerrero Botella

On 22 June 2011 08:37, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Right. Â*mplayer, xine, etc, work just fine as for instance mp3
>> players. So media-xxxx is fine for them.
>
> But probably we'll move it into media-players and so on then.

mplayer and some other things most-often used for playback might be a
bit of a hard-to-categorise subject though, ie: mplayer ships with
mencoder, which is more editing spectrum. I'm lead to believe you can
do some degree of transcoding with VLC too, but I might have a memory
problem ( I recall reading something along those lines, but it may be
"future tense" )

incidentally, I'd be in favour of splitting mplayer and mencoder into
seperate dists if it were sanely plausible to do so.


--
Kent

perl -eÂ* "print substr( "edrgmaMÂ* SPA NOcomil.ic@tfrken", $_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:18:26 +1200
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:

> incidentally, I'd be in favour of splitting mplayer and mencoder into
> seperate dists if it were sanely plausible to do so.

A same thing would be great, say, for ffmpeg. Right now we just have
USE=encode which enable all encoder dependencies based on other flags.
What if I wanted a minimal encoding support and maximal decoding?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny