Hello friends!
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
> 171119 James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:50:20 -0500
>> Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>> 171118 David Seifert wrote:
>>>> As the Games team does not have enough manpower to keep tabs on all
>>>> games packages, we have dropped all games-* ebuilds to unstable
>>>> keywords (modulo those required by stable non-games packages).
>>> Isn't this overkill in the absence of widespread bug reports for games ?
>>> 'Stable' doesn't mean well-maintained,
>>> but in the tree for some time & no serious bug reports.
>> There are plenty of bug reports for games.
>
> What percentage of games pkgs have bugs ?
I too would like some clarification on the standards being used.
> Marking all games 'unstable' still seems to be overkill.
>
To add to this, it is unlikely the situation will improve until it is
made easier for people to contribute. If one is not aware there is a
tendency for Gentoo-related issues to receive blog posts addressing
them, or to be passed down via word of mouth on IRC, or to be hidden
in a hard-to-find (and/or index) page of the Wiki.
The most likely explanation for this state of affairs is that getting
contributions accepted into the main tree is too hard.
It is one thing to say that contributions to the main Portage tree
require some standards to be upheld, but these standards do not seem
to be applied consistently. For example, crossdev, genkernel, and the
bootstrap-prefix and bootstrap-rap scripts are more or less
unmaintainable disasters. Crossdev in particular oscillates between
periods of relative stability and extreme brokenness, and the
bootstrap scripts are poorly explained with no extant documentation
and a workflow that does not clearly fit into Gentoo (or more properly
Portage) development at large. Other ebuilds may simply install low
quality software, or install software that is hard to manage with
Portage.
Respectfully,
R0b0t1
