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