Change proposal to audacious/audacious-plugins

[Dennis Veatch]

On Thursday 29 March 2007 01:48:01 pm Kok, Auke wrote:
> Jaime Buffery wrote:
> > Hi, fellas
> >
> > Coming from Auke's proposal to test audacious, I was rather astonished
> > by the fact that it had no audio output unless I had installed
> > audacious-plugins.
> >
> > The problem is audacious depends on audacious-plugins for output, but
> > the plugins cannot be installed without audacious. Sad but true.
> >
> > IMHO, it is really weird that you have to install the plugins, as it
> > currently is, in order to get the player.
> >
> > So, we could:
> > a ) create a dummy module that depends first on audacious and then
> > on audacious-plugins.
> > b ) Put both sources in one unique module called audacious-all,
> > just audacious or whatever you like.
> > c ) Put a warning message on this issue at audacious' POST_INSTALL.
> > c ) Leave it as it is.
> >
> > I prefer the second approach. Okay, it isn't clean, but it works
> > as expected, e.g. I install a player and I can play. No other
> > module depends directly on audacious-plugins, so I don't see the
> > harm.
>
> just put everything into ""audacious"".
>
> Auke

Here's a better idea. Just send anything on the website module section that 
shows up in red to the poop can. To use some thinkin' that seems to be 
employed on the matter. 

Obviously anything that hasn't been updated in 1 year+ is not needed, not 
maintained by us devs, not maintained by anyone and a safety hazard to the 
newer bits and bytes that live in moonbase. Please think of the children.... 
to hell with the grandparents.

-- 
Dennis
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

http://www.lunar-linux.org/
It's worth the spin.