Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications
Hello!
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:42:16 +0200 George Danchev wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:33, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > 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.
Yeah, but an editor just takes one or more filenames as arguments and
opens/edits these. For burning to a CD/DVD, you have to specify a bunch
of options before cdrecord (for example) burns the disc (driver,
device, speed, burnproof options, etc..).
It's not like a "cd-writer myfile.iso" will burn the iso to CD/DVD, is
it? Or at least not until we have a wrapper for every cd burning tool
there is.
Enjoy.
Thomas
Reply to: