On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:18 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/21/2015 12:06 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> This seems quite reasonable, and I welcome QA's efforts at maintaining >> uniformity and cleanliness. >>
++ I'd rather see groups like QA making proposals to improve cross-Gentoo consistency than see stagnation. It was an RFC, and people can post issues with it, or escalate to Council if they're concerned. If taking it to Council I'd suggest you might want to come up with a better argument than "who cares about consistency?" As far as effort to remediate goes - there is no reason something like this couldn't be incorporated in future bumps/changes/etc. > > Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that users > cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore? That wasn't a QA decision, it was a Council decision. We didn't outright ban the eclass because we were hoping somebody would step up to lead the games team and clean things up. If you're proposing an outright ban on games.eclass and a move towards treating games like other packages you can petition the Council like anybody else. > Instead of ignoring the games project _again_ and making decisions above > their heads... try to fix the project maybe? Are you offering to do that? The issue is that nobody seems to want to take over the games project. You can't force people to join a dead team. It doesn't make sense to prevent progress either just to call attention to a dead team. > > Is this becoming a habit now? People who are rarely involved in any > games ebuild development suddenly know how games ebuild consistency > should look like. > This isn't about games consistency. This is about tree consistency. The games were already consistent with the dedicated USE flag. The problem is that they're doing it differently than virtually everything else, in a way that doesn't make as much sense. -- Rich
