| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ben de Groot (yngwin): |
| 3 |
>> yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Added: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog |
| 6 |
>> Log: |
| 7 |
>> Initial commit (bug #318337) |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> EAPI=5 |
| 12 |
>> inherit toolchain-funcs |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This breaks consistency. Now users cannot rely on games.eclass anymore. |
| 16 |
> We should either abandon it completely or follow it consistently. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Per the Council decision, this is strictly up to the maintainer's discretion. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm all for a more sensible solution. If you want to help form one I |
| 21 |
suggest joining the games team. As of the last call I don't believe |
| 22 |
anybody stepped up to join it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The fact that the current state is inconsistent has been pointed out |
| 25 |
numerous times already, and was known by the Council at the time the |
| 26 |
interim policy was decided on. The only real virtue of the current |
| 27 |
state is that it is less broken than the previous state. It was our |
| 28 |
hope that those interested in Gentoo games would step up and come up |
| 29 |
with something better, rather than having the council micromanage the |
| 30 |
games team. If you are interested in games, then I suggest being a |
| 31 |
part of this. If you aren't interested in games, then I'm not sure |
| 32 |
why we're having this conversation. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives