| 1 |
El vie, 21-11-2014 a las 10:10 -0500, Tim Harder escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 2014-11-21 09:54, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
> > There are users who seem to like it and the games team wants to keep it |
| 4 |
> > as well, so I don't see a reason to push into that direction. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > The main thing is that you cannot turn off all the permission stuff in |
| 7 |
> > the eclass whether you like it or not. Changing the install variables |
| 8 |
> > thing is just for convenience and already possible. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If people don't want to use the games eclass, then don't use it. I |
| 11 |
> thought this had already been discussed and mostly ok-ed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't see the point of adding circumvention methods if you can just |
| 14 |
> avoid it altogether. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Tim |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Personally I lost the track in all the games.eclass issue... I thought |
| 19 |
it was going to be dropped finally :/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The problem I see in keeping it and also allow people to not use that |
| 22 |
one is that we will have some games installed in different places and |
| 23 |
permissions than others... and that looks really inconsistent to me (I |
| 24 |
guess people will simply keep adding themselves to games group... but, |
| 25 |
in that case, what is the purpose of keeping that group and special |
| 26 |
paths?) |
Archives