On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:53:40 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that games are a `special case', but why not make it a > RESTRICT=interact which would automatically mean repoman would not > allow the package into stable, and admins could easily weed such > packages out? That way any category could use the same thing for > packages with more restrictive licenses. (I'm not suggesting this > should be merged with fetch-restricted as I accept that some stable > Java packages have this set, and there's zero benefit in changing > them.) This isn't about stable or not stable, or about games being special. No ebuild _should_ be interactive, period. However in some cases there is no way to make it non-interactive, and the concentration of those cases is particulary high in the games category (mainly because of a lack of high quality OSS games). Oh, and I've withdrawn the RESTRICT idea as there is a better/more generic solution (not yet implemented though). > So yeah I guess it's encouragement, but if the policy is such > packages can never hit stable, where's the harm? A user has to > explicitly allow such a package (or run unstable in which case they > will be used to dealing with glitches ;) and scripts can still avoid > interactive packages. (And bear in mind, it's not just uis we're > talking about, but stuff like QA automation.) Again, interactivity isn't a criterium for a package becoming stable or not. Marius -- Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
