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
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
-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 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.
++
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 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
-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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
-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
-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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
