On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >> Rich Freeman: >> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Ben de Groot (yngwin): >> >>> yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33 >> >>> >> >>> Added: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest >> >>> ChangeLog >> >>> Log: >> >>> Initial commit (bug #318337) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> EAPI=5 >> >>> inherit toolchain-funcs >> >>> >> >> >> >> This breaks consistency. Now users cannot rely on games.eclass anymore. >> >> We should either abandon it completely or follow it consistently. >> > >> > Per the Council decision, this is strictly up to the maintainer's >> > discretion. >> > >> >> I am aware of that and I think it was a wrong decision, so I encourage >> people to do the opposite: not break consistency, unless there is a GOOD >> reason. > > Then please stop. You are openly and with full awareness spreading > confusion amongst people.
++ If you want to put out games policy proposals on the lists for open discussion by all means do so. If you want to join the games team, by all means do so. If you want to maintain your games ebuilds as you wish until a consistent policy is developed, go ahead and do that (since that was what the Council said you can do). However, comments like this in the context of individual commits aren't a great idea unless you're spotting some kind of breakage. If your comment was "you removed games.eclass which changes the installed permissions of this file which means this error will happen" by all means point that out. It just makes sense to have the general "we need a more sane policy" discussion at the policy level. The thing is, you're only going to see a consistent way of handling games if people step up and say, "hey, I'm going to help make it happen." The role of the Council is to deal with conflicts that aren't being resolved by the groups/individuals involved, and the resolution to that conflict in this case was to let maintainers have the final call. If there were one completely obvious answer that everybody agreed with then nobody would have escalated it to the Council in the first place. -- Rich
