On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:27:18 -0700 > Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 06/30/2016 06:02 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I'm glad to see some reach-out here and taking responsibility for >> >> decisions. However, what does the QA team have to say about systems that >> >> want games on other media (such as an SSD or separate HDD), or wish to >> >> restrict the use of games on their system to certain accounts? >> > >> > Has anyone complained about either of these features going away? If >> > they're purely theoretical concerns... >> > >> > The games.eclass saga has gone on plenty long enough. I would much >> > prefer that we not relitigate it. I understand that you may not have >> > been around when most of it happened initially, but please understand >> > that it's not feasible to reconsider every decision when new >> > developers join the project. >> > >> I understand where you're coming from, but a lack of yelling or >> complaining isn't logically equivalent to consensus. It's a fair point >> to make, though. We don't know until we ask, so I'll post something on >> gentoo-user about it. > > Did you know that Gentoo users are more likely to want something once > you tell them they can want it? Even if it doesn't really make any > sense, and they never felt like needing it in the past. > > So you're likely to make more noise than it's worth, and turn a minor > loss into a major one. 'Hey, I'm telling you you can do X since we're > removing it, enjoy it for a few days!' > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
I wanted it, but didn't know it existed. I found more utility in virtualizing machines to run games; the problem disappears with a new /.
