On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:42:07 -0700
"Daniel Campbell (zlg)" wrote:
> > Sure, we did drop this, but I don't really see this line of
> > argument actually accomplishing anything productive. Creating a
> > games team that fixes these issues would be productive. Letting
> > others fix them is also p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/21/2015 10:39 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell
> wrote:
>> On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote:
>>>
Like allowing that devs may or may not use ga
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/21/2015 03:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg)
> wrote:
>> Based on what I'm seeing in this thread, the problem seems to
>> center around the description and application of the `dedicated`
>> fla
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:17 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> I don't know. Stick to your word, maybe?
I'm glad we have you here to be our conscience. :)
I'm sure this will go on the next agenda. However, the decision to
kick the can was actually an intentional one. We were hoping to see
more interest
hasufell posted on Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:27:06 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 08/21/2015 02:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Right now there isn't even a functional games team to leave alone, and
>> this isn't just about games.
>>
>>
> Exactly. Start there, instead of having the council or QA impose games
On 08/21/2015 07:39 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote:
>>>
Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that
users cannot expect consist
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that
>>> users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore?
>>
>> Sorry, but th
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:27 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/21/2015 02:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Right now there isn't even a functional games team to leave alone, and
>> this isn't just about games.
>>
>
> Exactly. Start there, instead of having the council or QA impose games
> policies. It's n
On 08/21/2015 02:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Right now there isn't even a functional games team to leave alone, and
> this isn't just about games.
>
Exactly. Start there, instead of having the council or QA impose games
policies. It's not their job.
On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote:
>
>> Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that
>> users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore?
>
> Sorry, but that is not accurate. Usage of games.eclass has been
> depr
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:03:26 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> That increases the burden of managing configuration and further abuses
> REQUIRED_USE where it wasn't meant to be used in the first place.
Daily reminder that there's no such thing as "how REQUIRED_USE is meant
to be used in the first place", b
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> As an old-school gamer and someone who runs dedicated servers and have
> done so for years, I disagree. So would a lot of gamers.
As an old-school gamer I think the USE=client/server thing makes a lot
of sense.
So would a lot of gamers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 21/08/15 12:58, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Somebody made the argument that sometimes having consistency
> within domains matters more than global consistency. I can buy
> that argument, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
As an old-school ga
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The eclass isn't officially deprecated, but it probably should be.
> You should install a game just like you'd install a word-processor or
> a web browser. It is just another desktop application (99% of the
> time).
Ugh, I should have read u
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>
> While i am all for unification, i do not think that this is the case,
> where QA should be involved. "Dedicated server" is established phrase,
> that all users, who wants to maintain such services, know. So, i do not
> think that our dire
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
> Based on what I'm seeing in this thread, the problem seems to center
> around the description and application of the `dedicated` flag. I'm
> fully in favor of the `server` and `client` flags because they're
> clear and consistent.
++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/20/2015 10:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Right now, a number of game packages are using USE=dedicated to
> control 'installing a dedicated game server only'. Aside to that,
> some game packages also have USE=server that controls buildin
On 21 August 2015 at 19:16, Sergey Popov wrote:
> Now, THAT should be fixed either way - by moving 'dedicated' to
> 'server'(for those packages), or, preferabbly - by allowing
> USE='dedicated' to work as hasufell said - build ONLY dedicated server
> and no client at all.
Another compromise that
20.08.2015 20:42, Michał Górny пишет:
> Hi,
>
> Right now, a number of game packages are using USE=dedicated to control
> 'installing a dedicated game server only'. Aside to that, some game
> packages also have USE=server that controls building the server itself.
> Non-game package use USE=client
19 matches
Mail list logo
