| 1 |
On 11/21/2014 04:10 PM, Tim Harder wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2014-11-21 09:54, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> There are users who seem to like it and the games team wants to keep it |
| 4 |
>> as well, so I don't see a reason to push into that direction. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> The main thing is that you cannot turn off all the permission stuff in |
| 7 |
>> the eclass whether you like it or not. Changing the install variables |
| 8 |
>> thing is just for convenience and already possible. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If people don't want to use the games eclass, then don't use it. I |
| 11 |
> thought this had already been discussed and mostly ok-ed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't see the point of adding circumvention methods if you can just |
| 14 |
> avoid it altogether. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Are you serious? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Instead of creating random competing concepts in one repository we |
| 20 |
should rather enhance configuration options, so that the USER can choose |
| 21 |
what he likes instead of the developer. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think this is a very bad idea. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If we all decide to drop the eclass, then fine. Until then, users don't |
| 26 |
have any convenient way to have games world-executable without |
| 27 |
overwriting the eclass (which I currently do myself). |
Archives