1 |
On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to |
4 |
> breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in |
5 |
> the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > the issue has been taken care of |
8 |
> |
9 |
> You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council |
10 |
> members who aren't games team members think? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > [to the detriment of users] |
13 |
> |
14 |
> How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable |
15 |
> detrimental to users? |
16 |
|
17 |
I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, |
18 |
but not part of the games team/herd. |
19 |
|
20 |
One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever |
21 |
keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application |
22 |
just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking |
23 |
to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is |
24 |
launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That |
25 |
means our users need the game right away. |
26 |
|
27 |
I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now |
28 |
after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable |
29 |
keyword. So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to |
30 |
unmask EL just so they can play their game. |
31 |
|
32 |
So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be |
33 |
detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could |
34 |
argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should |
35 |
we discriminate? |
36 |
|
37 |
Thanks |
38 |
|
39 |
Roy |
40 |
|
41 |
DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email |
42 |
with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. |
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |