Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications
Am Samstag 18 November 2006 19:42 schrieb George Danchev:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:33, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > On Friday 17 November 2006 15:22, George Danchev wrote:
> > > * `cd-burner' -- could be provided by wodim, cdrskin, (cdrdao
> > > ?) * `dvd-burner' -- could be provided by wodim, dvd+rw-tools and
> > > dvdrecord
> >
> > I don't know the programs in question exactly, but how likely is it that
> > even wodim and cdrecord will stay commandline compatible?
> >
> > If they can't be used with the exact same commandline, there's no sense
> > in providing these virtual packages because the programs need explicit
> > support for each of those programs. (And especially with these writing
> > applications, arcane options need to be specified in many cases, so it's
> > not a case of a common API with some few extra options a backend might
> > use if it has specific support.)
>
> Fair concern, but this is also true for other already existing virtual
> packages -- editor comes to mind. Isn't it more important what a
> functionality is being provided, and not so important how it is provided.
editor <file>
is a bit easier than
cd-writer <file>
because it is not even clear what <file> actually is (must have special
formats like .cue or .iso or whatever is supported) and you certainly need
some options. And after all, there are a LOT more editors than programs that
can burn CDs/DVDs.
cd-writer is not even a good name for it. What do you want to put on the CD?
Audio, Video, Data? Shall it be bootable on on what arch. Shall input from
stdin be possible. Same for DVD.
The matter is a bit more complex than to say: I need a cd-burner program. And
that makes the virtual package name a bit useless.
Just my opinion, though.
HS
Reply to: