| 1 |
On 11/21/2014 10:08 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/21/2014 04:10 PM, Tim Harder wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 2014-11-21 09:54, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> There are users who seem to like it and the games team wants to keep it |
| 6 |
>>>> as well, so I don't see a reason to push into that direction. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> The main thing is that you cannot turn off all the permission stuff in |
| 9 |
>>>> the eclass whether you like it or not. Changing the install variables |
| 10 |
>>>> thing is just for convenience and already possible. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> If people don't want to use the games eclass, then don't use it. I |
| 13 |
>>> thought this had already been discussed and mostly ok-ed. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> I don't see the point of adding circumvention methods if you can just |
| 16 |
>>> avoid it altogether. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Are you serious? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Instead of creating random competing concepts in one repository we |
| 22 |
>> should rather enhance configuration options, so that the USER can choose |
| 23 |
>> what he likes instead of the developer. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> I think this is a very bad idea. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> If we all decide to drop the eclass, then fine. Until then, users don't |
| 28 |
>> have any convenient way to have games world-executable without |
| 29 |
>> overwriting the eclass (which I currently do myself). |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> It wasn't obvious to me that these were variables intended for |
| 33 |
> end-user usage. Perhaps you could make this more clear in the |
| 34 |
> comments? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I've already written a patch for fixing the documentation. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
The games team suggests to do: |
| 40 |
GAMES_GROUP=users |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
if you want games world-executable which isn't particularly the same, |
| 43 |
but close enough I guess? |
Archives