1 |
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> But I must admit I lost the track of this issue some time ago and I |
4 |
> don't remember why the eclass is still allowed and then both policies |
5 |
> are being used in parallel depending on the maintainer, that is the |
6 |
> reason I haven't suggested the Council to deprecate games.eclass |
7 |
> finally :/ |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
There is an immediate reason for this, and a deeper underlying issue. (IMHO.) |
11 |
|
12 |
The immediate issue was that the Council was dealing with a crisis |
13 |
with the games herd and wanted to take the minimum initial action to |
14 |
break the logjam. That meant removing the requirement that all games |
15 |
have to be under the control of the herd, but not interfering with how |
16 |
the herd itself was managed. There have been some attempts since to |
17 |
try to get a games team organized, but so far I don't think there has |
18 |
been much interest in that. It would be far better for a bunch of |
19 |
devs interested in games to get together, work out how to clean up the |
20 |
mess, and do it versus just having the council step into that role |
21 |
with a club. If that doesn't get anywhere then we can always revisit |
22 |
the situation and ask whether the current games policies are a serious |
23 |
problem, and if so should we turn that into some kind of QA issue with |
24 |
mandatory cleanup. In general, though, we try to aim for |
25 |
minimal-interference at the Council level. That brings me to... |
26 |
|
27 |
The deeper underlying issues, IMHO, might have something to do with |
28 |
the fact that a distro that is designed around letting every user have |
29 |
it their own way tends to lead to a culture of developers who all want |
30 |
to have everything their own way as well. :) |
31 |
|
32 |
That, and things like this: |
33 |
"Projects may well conflict with other projects. That's okay." [1] |
34 |
|
35 |
games.eclass is really just one more manifestation of this, though a |
36 |
more obvious one. How many foo-cleaner/foo-updater/etc scripts do we |
37 |
have out there now for things that aren't cleanly updated by portage, |
38 |
and how consistent is the syntax from one to the next? There are many |
39 |
package-to-package inconsistencies with how things get done. Of |
40 |
course, most of those aren't the result of outright disagreements. |
41 |
|
42 |
In general we tend to leave many things up to maintainers to "do the |
43 |
right thing" and I think that most of us tend to like it that way. I |
44 |
think the areas for Council involvement are ones like: |
45 |
1. Outright conflict between maintainers/projects. |
46 |
2. Cases where maintainers aren't really in active conflict, but |
47 |
consistency would benefit everybody and isn't particularly onerous to |
48 |
achieve. |
49 |
3. Decisions that really affect the direction of the distro as a whole. |
50 |
|
51 |
[1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:39 |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Rich |