| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 08/07/14 19:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 07/09/2014 01:22 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... |
| 6 |
>>> I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. |
| 7 |
>>> and 2. should definately |
| 8 |
>>> stay as is. |
| 9 |
>> What authority does the game team have over anything? Did it get special |
| 10 |
>> blessing from the Council? Isn't it just another regular project as per |
| 11 |
>> GLEP 39? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Not everything we have had since-always-standing is documented, |
| 14 |
> unfortunately -- games has always been special from others |
| 15 |
> Still, even if it's undocumented, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Figuring out whether it was ever supposed to have that kind of |
| 18 |
authority isn't quite as important as figuring out whether we still |
| 19 |
want it to. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Other types of packages seem to get by just fine without them (even |
| 22 |
system packages). Why treat games differently than other types of |
| 23 |
packages? We don't use /usr/X11R6 despite that being in FHS right |
| 24 |
alongside /usr/games. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If we do want it to have special authority then governance matters |
| 27 |
more. However, it would be far simpler to just treat games the way we |
| 28 |
treat everything else. Is there a reason not to? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives