On 11/21/2014 10:08 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > 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? >
I've already written a patch for fixing the documentation. The games team suggests to do: GAMES_GROUP=users if you want games world-executable which isn't particularly the same, but close enough I guess?