Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:38:39 -0400 From: Alan E <alane@geeksrus.net> To: David Yeske <dyeske@yahoo.com> Cc: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net>, alane@FreeBSD.ORG, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Ports List <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>, Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> Subject: Re: Shouldn't xmms-pipe be under audio, with all the other xmms-* plugins? Message-ID: <20020826173839.GA58144@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> In-Reply-To: <20020826113721.95663.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020826050913.I2666-100000@blues.jpj.net> <20020826113721.95663.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 04:37:21AM -0700, David Yeske wrote: >There is a lot of grey area there, we have xmms plugins scattered all over the place... > >Although most of the vis plugins are under ports/graphics > >I noticed windowmaker has its own category. Should xmms have one also? x11-wm is window *manager*, if that's what you are thinking. No, it shouldn't, IMO. >xmms-pipe doesn't actually require a sound card or have anything to do with sound, and either does >xmms-alarm, although xmms-alarm is something that provides a clock that requires X... xmms-pipe does the same thing that p5-Xmms does, except via a named pipe instead of the built-in network control interface. So, best argument I can make is, aside from the one that almost all but vis are in audio, p5-Xmms, which provides analogous function, is in audio, and I think xmms-pipe should go in the same place. Besides, in case you hadn't noticed, it's done already. -- AlanE KDE-FreeBSD Team (http://freebsd.kde.org/) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020826173839.GA58144>