-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi.
José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote: > Roy Marples wrote: >> >> I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, >> but not part of the games team/herd. >> >> One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever >> keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application >> just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking >> to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is >> launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That >> means our users need the game right away. > > Thanks for the example, trust me if I tell you that we can understand > the situation pretty well. > >> >> I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now >> after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable >> keyword. > > I'm nearly sure that you always (at least) compile and run the new > version in your box before you sent it to stable, didn't you? So, at > least, you are able to say that it works in your case. > >> So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to >> unmask EL just so they can play their game. > > There are always ways to educate users about how to use portage properly. > >> So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be >> detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could >> argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should >> we discriminate? >> > > Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or > beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to > Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch > packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). > Agreed. All Gentoo beryl users need to use ~arch. I don't think games are so special that we must provide them on stable arch. Afertall, if games are keyworded testing, users can add them to /etc/portage/packaage.keywords if they run a stable system. > This is how I see it: > > Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very > zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to > not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the > users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken) > version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together > with the maintainer. > > But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus > will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it > in the arch :) > > Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have > the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those > el1te gam3rs. > > Thanks. > I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As others have questioned, how are games more important than security bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more sense, imho. Anyway, the important point here for the council meeting is whether our keywording policy is to be enforced or not, regardless of herd, or if / how we want to have exceptions. DISCLAIMER: I have no problems with games. I do like to play some, but I see no problem with using package.keywords. - -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel / Proctors -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGOxXWcAWygvVEyAIRAgv5AJ9k5N/7Uri+rFCxOZllSp2NwmB67gCfepe3 A1Yj3pwuAI3oo/TODP7N79E= =UYbe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
