On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 07/09/2014 01:22 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... >> I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. >> and 2. should definately >> stay as is. > What authority does the game team have over anything? Did it get special > blessing from the Council? Isn't it just another regular project as per > GLEP 39? >
While I tend to agree with the sentiment, and it may not be productive to try to turn this into a bunch of rules, it is beneficial to have guidelines/etc managed by projects in general, and to have maintainers generally try to follow them. So, if you're using the multilib eclass in your ebuild then it only make sense to coordinate with the project that manages that. It isn't so much about following rules as it just makes sense to not have everything randomly break anytime somebody changes something. If the games team is active and wants to help steer contributions that isn't a bad thing. I'd suggest a bit more finesse though - they can at least talk to maintainers before doing a package move. I've managed exactly one game package and I can't say that working with the games herd has ever been a problem. For the most part they're fairly hands-off as long as you follow their rules. That said, if anybody wants to be able to tell others what they can and can't do then they should be prepared to have their rules bikesheded in public from time to time. That's just the price of fame, and if all games are supposed to follow the game project rules, then those rules are perfectly good cannon fodder for -dev, whether it gets escalated to council or not. :) Rich
