On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 11/21/2014 04:10 PM, Tim Harder wrote: >> On 2014-11-21 09:54, hasufell wrote: >>> There are users who seem to like it and the games team wants to keep it >>> as well, so I don't see a reason to push into that direction. >> >>> The main thing is that you cannot turn off all the permission stuff in >>> the eclass whether you like it or not. Changing the install variables >>> thing is just for convenience and already possible. >> >> If people don't want to use the games eclass, then don't use it. I >> thought this had already been discussed and mostly ok-ed. >> >> I don't see the point of adding circumvention methods if you can just >> avoid it altogether. >> > > Are you serious? > > Instead of creating random competing concepts in one repository we > should rather enhance configuration options, so that the USER can choose > what he likes instead of the developer. > > I think this is a very bad idea. > > If we all decide to drop the eclass, then fine. Until then, users don't > have any convenient way to have games world-executable without > overwriting the eclass (which I currently do myself). >
It wasn't obvious to me that these were variables intended for end-user usage. Perhaps you could make this more clear in the comments?
