On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:55:29 -0700 Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 16:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > Let me just say that as a user, concerning this technology > > aggregate, I really don't care, it has to "just work" :). Now if > > you gather enough momentum to split this flag and make other people > > on this list agree with you, I'll be just fine with it :) > > I'd be positive to splitting them. Especially because for instance in > an office you might care about port forwarding but won't care about > DLNA. > > Speaking of which, renaming (where applicable) upnp to dlna might be > more user friendly since usually you have the feature _advertised_ as > DLNA, not as UPnP! Just to make it clear: - USE=upnp for upnp-igd or nat-pmp, - USE=dlna for the video magic and so on. Do I understand correctly? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
