Dnia 17 lutego 2016 03:09:18 CET, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>Hash: SHA256
>On 02/08/2016 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 04:13:38 -0800 Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>> On 02/07/2016 03:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 11:38:27 +0100 "M.B." <tombo...@sina.cn>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello folks.
>>>>> While hacking away on a new ebuild I came across the issue
>>>>> that games.eclass apparently got banned from future use. The
>>>>> only references I was able to dig up (apart from helpful
>>>>> people on IRC), were
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566498 (games.eclass:
>>>>> use of games group needs to be removed wrt 20151011 Council
>>>>> meeting) and 
>>> ies#Games_team_policies_issue
>>> (A mere deprecation notice).
>>>>> In contrast, a simple "grep deprec /usr/portage/eclass/"
>>>>> gives numerous deprecation warnings; just games.eclass is not
>>>>> among them.
>>>>> Please provide some guidance how (community-)developers are 
>>>>> supposed to handle games (in particular wrt games.eclass) in
>>>>> the future. This also includes usage of
>>>>> /usr/games/{bin/lib/share} etc.
>>>> For reference, this is the reference decision:
>I'm going to open a bug asking games team how they're going to
>>>> proceed.
>>> Please let us know when you do; there are a few Humble Bundle
>>> games I'd like to bring to the tree and I, too, don't have much
>>> to go on as far as guidelines beyond our usual.
>> I'm sorry for replying this late. The relevant bugs are:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566498 for games group 
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=574080 for paths 
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=574082 as tracker for both
>Thanks for the links. I understand games have been the subject of a
>lot of 'discussion' on the ML over the past few years. What do you
>believe to be some of the main blockers to getting more dev
>participation? From what I gather, a decent portion of us play games
>on our systems, so it seems reasonable to get more maintainership
>spread out. There's a lot of user interest too, as Ian pointed out.

To answer that, we have to go back a while.

The games team was pretty much formed of two kinds of developers back then. One 
kind was retired developers, the other kind was developers who did what they 
cared about and ignored everything and everyone else. Bugs, join requests, 
complaints, all went ignored and games team kept silent claim to games in 

So the first Council case against games team was that they did not accept any 
new members. Or rather, silently ignored join requests. They also ignored 
inquiries wrt the case and the Council.

The result was that the Council set up someone external to take care of 
inviting new members, and electing new team lead afterwards. As it could be 
predicted, nobody wanted to join, or rather be forced into the team they 
weren't welcome in.

Then the case against policies started. The first abolished myth was games team 
sole claim to games in gentoo. Where Council pretty much only confirmed that 
they have no right for that and everyone can maintain game ebuilds without 
having games team approval or co-maintenance.

The remaining cases you already know.

During the whole process, I don't recall a single reply from games team member. 
And in the meantime, they continue their silent routine of doing whatever they 
care about, and ignoring Council requests.

>- -- 
>Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
>OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
>fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
>Version: GnuPG v2

Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Reply via email to