| 1 |
Dnia 2014-07-29, o godz. 11:18:18 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 5 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 6 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
| 9 |
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 10 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Following my earlier mail to gentoo-dev [1], I would like the Council to |
| 13 |
either abolish the specific policies enforced by games team, or confirm |
| 14 |
that they are non-binding. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The games team is currently (against the structure given by GLEP 39 |
| 17 |
[2]) claiming itself to have sole and complete authority over every |
| 18 |
game package in Gentoo. Additionally, it tries to fit them in |
| 19 |
a Gentoo-specific model that causes many games to diverge from upstream |
| 20 |
and gain a lot of unnecessary complexity, sometimes even causing |
| 21 |
security issues. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have tried to convince the games team to consider changing |
| 24 |
the policies multiple times, sometimes getting rude responses or no |
| 25 |
reply at all. At this point, I believe that the only solution is to |
| 26 |
ask the Council to clarify the policies which can be enforced |
| 27 |
by a single team. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
More specifically, I would like the Council to appropriately confirm or |
| 30 |
establish that: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
1. every developer is allowed to commit and maintain game ebuilds, |
| 33 |
without the need to ask for permission or review from games team, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
2. games team does not have authority to override maintainer decisions |
| 36 |
on game packages, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
3. the use of group 'games' to control access to games can be |
| 39 |
deprecated and needs not to be enforced, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
4. the /usr/games hierarchy (esp. Gentoo-specific /usr/games/lib*) |
| 42 |
and other locations listed in games.eclass are entirely optional. Using |
| 43 |
upstream install locations is recommended, |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
5. the use of games.eclass is entirely optional. Preferably, the eclass |
| 46 |
would be deprecated since it mostly serves the purpose of enforcing |
| 47 |
the rules objected in (3) and (4). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Rationale |
| 51 |
--------- |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
1. Game packages do not include core system packages or packages |
| 54 |
otherwise critical to Gentoo. They also do not have any common pitfalls |
| 55 |
specific only to games that could justify the requirement of review. |
| 56 |
Being an active Gentoo developer should be the only necessary quality |
| 57 |
required to commit game ebuilds. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
2. Since no special treatment is justified, the games team should not |
| 60 |
claim the right to override maintainer's decisions, remove maintainers |
| 61 |
or remove packages stating 'non-games team commit' as a reason. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
3. The attempt of limiting access to games through use of 'games' group |
| 64 |
is unjustified and unprofessional. It caused multiple issues |
| 65 |
in the past, including repeatedly ignored security issue from 2006 [3] |
| 66 |
and multiple uses of RESTRICT=userpriv [4]. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
I recall hearing that game access ought to be restricted because |
| 69 |
the games are more likely to be of worse quality and the sysadmin wants |
| 70 |
limit the access to them to the trusted users. Yet at the same time |
| 71 |
the restriction is causing game ebuilds to run game tools with root |
| 72 |
privileges since otherwise the portage user is unable to access them. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
4. This specific hierarchy is specified by FHS as optional and is |
| 75 |
not beneficial to users (esp. considering the objection in (3)). |
| 76 |
In some cases, it forces a lot of patching on packages using |
| 77 |
non-autoconf build systems that would otherwise be installed in /usr |
| 78 |
hierarchy, with no visible benefit. Additionally, this causes Gentoo to |
| 79 |
diverge from upstream and therefore from other distributions. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
5. Most of the code in the games.eclass is meant to redefine phase |
| 82 |
functions and provide wrappers over standard PMS helpers. The sole |
| 83 |
purpose of all that is to force the ownership and permissions (objected |
| 84 |
in (3)), and /usr/games hierarchy (objected in (4)). If Council agrees |
| 85 |
on abolishing those requirements, the eclass becomes mostly a no-op |
| 86 |
(or equivalent to base.eclass which it is inheriting). |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
Moreover, the games team currently requires the eclass to be always |
| 89 |
inherited last. Since it redefines multiple phase functions, this |
| 90 |
sometimes results in ebuilds needing to restore all 'original' phase |
| 91 |
functions. |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
[1]:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91839/ |
| 94 |
[2]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:39 |
| 95 |
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125902 |
| 96 |
[4]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516576 |
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
-- |
| 99 |
Best regards, |
| 100 |
Michał Górny |
Archives